@Daryl More like delusions . One X class solar flare has more ifluence on climate than all human activity in recorded history . Whatever you call it , global warming , climate change , is just a political scare tactic to move public sentiment toward global government . You are just Hell bent on pushing the world to the End of Days . Get back to me in 100 years and let me know how it worked out for you .

Unfortunately, no facts will sway the 'true believer' in the face of a 'higher truth'. We are scarcely into the Anthropocene era. I firmly believe that if we are the cause, then we will also be the solution. All in all, the planet was here for four and half billion years before us and will be here long after we are gone. The Earth has been a sweltering swamp and it has been a frozen snowball. It will likely be both again (and again) before it's all over.

@Daryl, you're going to have to pick that mic back up. Nowhere in that rambling post was there a single fact. Even the "facts" are opinions. Please keep it civil, calling people with different opinions names like cultists make you sound like a walking liberal talking point.

I should clarify that I didn't write this. Although I agree with it 100%.

Read my opening sentence again. I didn't write it.

@Daryl

THE VERY CONCEPT OF SETTLED SCIENCE IS ABSURIDTY...but such absurdities are nothing new.

Actually, the not only is debate still existence, but there are so many scientists defecting and distancing themselves from the AGW hypothesis that it's astonishing. Even the notion of them not debating it is the height of scientific absurdity, almost as absurdity to think science is ever settled. Science is the ongoing discovery of the unknown. Entertaining the idea that human knowledge is as cloistered in such a way as demonstrated by such a comment defies not only logic but the very nature and best of scientific discovery throughout history. It completely baffles my mine and it takes a great deal to baffles me.

To prove the point that anyone can actually believe that any science is settled you need not look further that one of the greatest EXPERTS in the field of physics Lord Kelvin, who said in the year 1900:

"Three is nothing to be discovered in Physcis now, all that remains is more and more precise measument" Lord Kelvin

In 1898, Kelvin predicted that only 400 years of oxygen supply remained on the planet, due to the rate of burning combustibles.[62][63] In his calculation, Kelvin assumed that photosynthesis was the only source of free oxygen; he did not know all of the components of the oxygen cycle. He could not even have known all of the sources of photosynthesis: for example the cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus—which accounts for more than half of marine photosynthesis—was not discovered until 1986.

These Experts, and thousands more, all of whom are experts in their field, many of whom worked directly with the IPCC, seem to be of a very different opinion than the 75 of the 77 experts in the infamous fraud that make up the 97.4% concensus that makes up the John Cook et al study that you have cited as a proof. It just completely defies logic. You know the survey that you put so much credence in that proves 98% of the experts agree?

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth’s magnetic field.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lui?s Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, has published several peer-reviewed studies in biochemistry. Mumper's presentation was titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Updated December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

"It’s an uncertain science and climate researchers have lost the public's trust" from a cascade of scandals from the UN IPCC. "Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen" and the magazine noted that "some of IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles...Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to criticism by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments."

Dr. Judith Curry, once the High Priestess of Global Warming, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. "There is 'a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink...’ They are setting themselves up as second- rate scientists by not engaging,”

Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC's claims. "They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics...the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut...I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC...I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field...While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the 'science hadn't changed."

The news article read: 'High Priestess of Global Warming' No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being 'Duped Into Supporting IPCC' - 'If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic'

Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment." See here, here, and here. The InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.

@Daryl

Can you see what's wrong with these two graphs? The first is NASA 1999 version, with verified and documented historic temperatures, the second is a later version of the exact same graph except some one has taken it upon themselves to "adjust" past recoded and verified temperatures down, it has also been discovered that modern temperatures have been adjust upwards from the actual raw recoded data.

This is the basis of the AGW belief system, almost all the warning in the last part of the 20th Century and the first part of the 21st Century has been via adjustments, not actual recorded data.

Mark Twain aptly said: ‘It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled’

I realize that only you can convince yourself that you, along with a lot of other people have been fooled. I can provide you with all the evidence, the scientific research of many of the most recognized scientists in the field, but until you decide that you are inquisitive enough to do your own research into the issues, read the actual studies, and realize that most of the scientists in the AGW camp have been discredited, even the IPCC has been labeled by the majority of the scientific community as little more than a political entity with scant credibility, well only you can reach into the depths of your mind and eventually understand that science, no matter the field, is never actually settled. I assure you it will be one of the greatest intellectual adventures of your life once you delve into the subject.

Pic 1- the actual data-set 1999, pre-agenda
Pic 2- adjusted data-set 2017- post-agenda

@Daryl

Dave Burton, IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewer writes:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

#SettledScience

@Daryl

LMAO

Interestingly, the Skeptical Science web page shows no multiple lines of empirical evidence, or haven't you noticed?

From the pre-industrial age, CO2 Has risen how much? 0.0044% therefore, the total contribution of man-made greenhouse effect through emissions is what? Approximately, based on EPA measurements, it is 0.117% of the total effect including water vapor. Excluding water vapor, which is unrealistic and unscientific, you get a slightly higher effect, but still not enough to drive a climate system as complex as the Earth's. The emissions by man from the beginning of the Industrial Age to present have been less that 1% of the total amount of CO2 In the atmosphere, to even consider that amount capable of being a driver of climate is nothing backed by the laws of physics.

“Predicting the Future
Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.”

Ah, and you have, in that statement, proved that the AGW theory is indeed incorrect. Not only have the predictive character of the AGW climate models failed in their predictive accuracy in determining long-term predictability, but after 30 years they failed in their short-termed predictions. Not only that but those models have failed in reconstruction of paleoclimatological evidence in the geological record.

“The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.”

Amazing that people still cite Arrhenius, Fourier and Tyndall as scientists who proved the greenhouse effect of CO2... Have you read the actual experiments they performed? You should. It's also interesting that although you say that many scientists have refined the theory that you don't cite any. Also, you say greenhouse gases, the most abundant greenhouse gas is what? It's not CO2, it's not methane but water vapor.

In a recent peer-reviewed study published in GeoRes Journal the Medieval Warming Period was confirmed to have been a global occurrence and it was also much warmer, by 1.0 to 1.4 degrees higher than anything we have experienced in modern times and yet, CO2 Levels were lower, much lower. Also, based on recent discoveries, how could the island of Zkohkov been inhabitable 7800 years ago? It's a high Arctic Island North of Siberia, the verified temperature range, in order to be habitable, was 5 to 6 degrees higher than current temperatures and yet CO2 Levels were much lower. For the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming to be correct those examples should not occur unless, by some miracle of physics have changed the mechanics of the molecular structure of CO2 along when the entire climatic mechanisms that have operated on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. If you can explain such a transformation in the verified geological record and the laws of physics then by all means provide the proofs of such a miraculous metamorphosis. I doubt if the Skeptical Science blog will provide you that information.

“What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).“

Ah, the very big question, a big fly in the ointment of the AGW theory, is climate sensitivity, a little considered subject since it has not been adequately studied since the late 70s. Now let's look at the IPCC, they once set the limits of global average temperatures increases at no more than 2 degrees C by the year 2100, it was a totally arbitrary number, the proof of that is that they lowered it to 1.5 degrees C recently. The conjecture is that an increase of 2 degrees, all tied to man-made CO2, would have an unknown effect on the Earth's climate, But what they don't say is that we already know the effect because it happened in recent history, during a period that had nearly half the levels of CO2 than is currently in the Atmosphere. Temperatures are fairly steady until 1890, at that point, before the increase of CO2 emissions, the temperature of the Earth began to increase and we saw a 2 degree rise up to about the year 2000 when temperatures once again began to decrease globally according to NASA, i.e the Hiatus as it has come to be called. The point is that if the figure of 2 degrees C were remotely scientific, them it wouldn't be arbitrary or, for that matter, changeable and it wouldn't be used as a political scare tactic without any basis in wither fact or especially, in historical evidence. So given that the Earth has already warned by 2 degrees C, where were the global catastrophes associated what that increase in global temperatures? We also know that in the geological record the at both the Earth and humans have flourished at temperatures that were 6 degrees higher than present day. In fact, by looking at population increases, those population explosions in the past were all associated with climate related increases in temperatures.

“What Goes Down…
The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.”

The above quote you cite certainly doesn't come from a scientific perspective does it? When you determine the actual molecular mechanism of CO2 , along with other atmospheric gases and forces involved within in Earth Climate System, you find such simplistic explanations as you presented, I assume once again from the Skeptical Science Blog, as again laughable.

Tell me, just how does the molecular mechanism of CO2 work in the Atmosphere? By what mechanism does it perform two completely different physical functions as both a conductor of heat on Earth and an insulator that keeps the upper atmosphere cool. The quote stated using a generic term “ greenhouse gas” rather than specifically using “CO2”, that itself should be a red flag for anyone interested in real science, but I digress.

As is noted in the geological record, there has never been a period when CO2 increased prior to the increase of temperatures. After the last Ice Age, for instance, the rise in CO2 lagged the rise of temperatures by 800 years, so what caused the warming of the Earth, it certainly wasn't CO2? The geological record proves one thing, that there are so many complexities within the system that it is not only not scientific to maintain that CO2 somehow drives the climate, but that the entire concept of CO2 being the primary element defies evidence to the contrary. Again, unless you can prove that the mechanics of the laws of physics and chemistry have been magically transformed then I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

“Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?"

Temperatures going up doesn't prove that CO2, or any other gas is the driver, correlation doesn't nor has it ever simply mean causation, the theory of AGW is built entirety upon correlation without proof of causation. The proof of that fact can be found in Millions of years of the geological record that prove just the opposite. Even the mechanics of solar and oceanographic should be enough to debunk the entire AGW mythology. For instance, what happens to Atmospheric CO2 when the oceans of the Earth cool, they absorb CO2’ what happens when the oceans warm, they degas CO2, now consider this mechanism, what role does CO2 play in either cycle? It should be obvious. Does CO2 cause the oceans to cool, thereby removing it from the atmosphere? If not then, by contradistinction, does CO2 cause the oceans to warm thereby releasing more CO2? The mechanism is the same, but the cause is not CO2, nor can it be because CO2 levels are and always have been subject to the multitude of processes involved with the entire climate cycles of the Earth that have been occurring for millions of years, even prior to the evolution of humans. The very idea of a bolt on an engine controlling the engine is not only unscientific, but it's difficult for me to see how anyone could consider it logical in the light of what little we do understand about the climate of this planet.

There is more correlation between the rise of the price of postage stamps and temperatures than there is between the rise of CO2 and temperatures, so if you trust in the idea of correlation you might want to start a new movement to keep the price of postage stamps from increasing because there is such a close correlation between it's price increase and temperatures than between CO2 and temperatures. Again, the law is that just because there is possibly a correlation between two elements doesn't mean that such correlation is indeed causation. Causation is determined by actual observational, this far no AGW scientist have provided that observational proof.

“The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground. Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”

I can tell you got this from Skeptical Science, yes it's just that obvious.The original hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, which assumed that the Earth was warmed up because of trapped longwave thermal energy, was debunked through experimentation and observation, and from measurements. The assumed greenhouse gases?, with exception of water vapor, are incapable of accumulating longwave radiative energy as it had been assumed.

A consequence of the scientific demonstration is that the ?greenhouse effect by trapped longwave radiative energy is imaginary proponents of the nonexistent greenhouse effect resort to another explanation you will not find in any serious scientific literature; they invent a process of warming a warmer surface by a cooler atmosphere through backradiation derived from thermal energy which has been impossibly accumulated by a cooler atmosphere that in the real world does not reach such average of thermal energy content.

AGW proponents and skeptics who argue about this hypothesis declare backradiation emitted from the atmosphere warms the warmer surface, as if the atmosphere was a duplicator of thermal energy. As a consequence, the second law of thermodynamics which determines the specific flow of thermal radiation from warmer to cooler is dismissed. Again, unless you can provide an actual proof then your concocted conjecture by John Cook remains as valid as his use of unscientific lingo to convince people to believe him. It's amazing that you don't see the number of contradictions in his website. Have you ever thought about reading actual scientific studies on the subject instead?

The fact that you are using Skeptical Science as a valid source is laughable.

.

@Daryl

Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" - Jacob Bronowski

Again, don't you think it odd that you continually use articles to support your position rather than actually debate the science, you have given a plethora of articles to cite your cause, I could do the exact same thing, but you have not provided a single statement of rebuttal to any peer-reviewed paper or any point of experiment or observational evidence. Now, you once proclaimed the validity of peer-reviewed scientific studies and yet, you are selective in the validity you choose to believe, how is that possible, especially if you haven't read them? It's a very valid question, so why is that?

You have instead relied upon the commonly used tactics that almost every single proponent of AGW use, i.e: “Consensus”, “global warming is real”, “those scientists must be on the payroll of big oil”

So, according to you the climate is getting warmer and yet, based on NASA data, in 1995 the average global temperature was 15.4 C, yet by January 2018 the average global temperature was 13.67C

NASA also confirms that 2018 while September of that year was the coolest in a decade that the overall year was a record low during the last 12,000 years of the Holocene Epoch. Putting this in perspective CO2 has increased to 0.0424% of atmosphere since the mini-ice age.

There is therefore, so much conflicting information, in particular on the lop-sided Anthropogenic Global Warming troop who seem to ignore anything that contradicts their theory, even though such facts are based on observational evidence.

So let's honestly look at that evidence, shall we?

Earth, based on geological evidence, undergoes alternating ice ages and warming periods. Do you agree?

Now, what created ice ages and warming periods?

During the last 10,000 years our Earth has experienced a warning period that peaked 7,800 years ago, a period that saw the thawing of areas that we habitual by humans that have been covered by ice making them now, after a few thousand years, are now uninhabitable despite the theory of AGW. Facts, observable facts, are hard to dispute, perhaps that's why AGW proponents never address in terms of their theory. We are, based on the geological record, in a temporary interglacial period where the tend since the peak warming of 7,800 years ago had been going downward rather than upward. From 7,800 years the temperature dropped to the Minoan Warming, then dropped further to the Roman Warming Period, even further to the Medieval Warming. Humans thrived during each of those periods; how does the recent warming stack up against those previous periods? Present temperatures are 5 to 6 degrees lower today than 7,800 years ago. Do you agree?

How then, does the proponents of the AGW reconcile such evidence with their theory? They don't, they can't, they have no valid explanation so they ignore it altogether. The reason for ignoring it is that it completely debunks their theory, hands down.

So what do we know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years. Do you agree?

This present ongoing great Ice-Age is called the Quaternary Ice-Age. This ice age started 2.58 million years ago. Surprisingly this Quaternary Ice-Age is the coldest period on Earth for the last 500 million years. Do you agree?

I'm sure it may come as a bit of surprise since you have been effectively transformed into essentially a thermophobic AGW adherent, but technically we are still living in an ice age today.

Now let's consider how the Earth is heated in terms of total radiation is received by the planet. In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So, given that law, if the distance is 2 then only a quarter of the radiation is received. If the distance is 4 then only a sixteenth of the radiation is received and so on.

Are you familiar with the Milankovitch Cycles, probably not. We are fast approaching the next Milankovitch Cycle, it's a phenomenon that happens every 100,000 years. In 2024 this phenomenon will once again occur when all the large gas planets will be on the same side of the sun as Earth, but there's more. In 2024, the elongation will occur during Winter in the Northern Hemisphere and knowing that ocean mass is primarily allocated in the Southern Hemisphere what occurs when the those planets align?

Of course, you won't find the possibilities of such occurrence in the Theory of AGW because it's a one topic theory centered on CO2 To essentially the exclusion of other factors. So, let's consider the fact that humanity has never experienced such an event. Now one of the features of the Milankovitch Cycles is that it's known to trigger rapid glaciation. Now combine that with the fact during this current Solar Minimum cycle a 27.68999864% reduction in Solar radiation, add to that a 13% difference in distance will reduce Solar radiation of almost a third on the scale of the Solar System. According to the geological record, this is how Ice Ages begin. So, you've asked the question “What if you are wrong?” If I'm wrong we simply adapt to a period that will not be extraordinary warning, it's been common in the last 10,000 years. But, what if you and all the AGW agenda pushers are wrong? What if, in a effort to lower CO2, combined with the natural forces of a cooling Earth that the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to 180 ppm? What you then have is a complete extermination of life on this planet. We will know just how correct the AGW theory really is as we fast approach 2024, won't we?

So, let's look at what happens when the onset of rapid glaciation brought on by numerous factors, many of sick we don't fully understand. The geological record points to rapid glaciation can occur as short as a decade, as extreme cold and increased snowfall, as we have been witnessing in the last several years, especially over the Northern Hemisphere produces what is commonly known a “lock-in” effect which is caused by an increase of ice, as we have seen, and increased cloud cover that extends the cold period beyond seasonal parameters. Contrary to the AGW crowd, all weather on Earth, from the surface to the atmospheric boundary, begins with the Sun. Small changes in the activity of the Sun influences both our surface and space weather. The most important impact from the Sun on the Earth is from the irradiance of the Sun itself. This energy is scattered, reflected, and absorbed at various altitudes in the atmosphere, but the resulting change in the temperature of the atmosphere is measurable.

In addition, the length of the Solar Minimum, along with the intensity, can have a major impact on the climate. For instance, during a Solar Minimum there is a drastic increase in the amount of Cosmic Rays that reach the Earth. So what does that mean in real terms? It means that Cosmic Rays can create nucleation points in the atmosphere that essentially act as seeds of cloud formation, thus adding an additional cooling effect on the climate of the Earth.

Let's take the Sahara desert was once a lush paradise. Based on what scientists know about the Earth's wobble, or the Milankovitch Climatic Precessional Cycle gives us a very precise measure. Like clockwork, the Sahara appears to be on an timeline of 23,000 years from a wet lush paradise to a dry desert. It's the same all over the globe.

So if NASA is correct that it's actually getting colder every year, not warmer, then what possibility are we potentially facing? If everything I've mentioned above all combine what will be the signs of such an event? We know that interglacial periods last about 10,000 to 12,000 years, we are now at the 12,000 year point between the last glacial period and present day.

For two decades, the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) at the Technical University of Denmark, has propounded a theory of “cosmoclimatology”, which holds that cosmic rays and sunspots are the real drivers of climate change.
It, contrary to the AGW theory, makes far more sense scientifically. So, as the studies present, atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei -- the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for future climate changes.

The idea that CO2, contrary to the geological record, is the primary driver of the climate denies the history that it is the Sun's energy output and the Total Solar Irradiance has created our planet's climate cycles in a repetitive pattern, all recorded in the geological record. The AGW theory declares that even CO2 is not following the geological record, that somehow it has preceded a warming cycle rather than follow the pattern that has actually occurred throughout the history of this planet where the increase of CO2 always follows the increase of temperature.

According to Gleissberg & Landscheidt cycles of gas giants alignment, full planet-wide cooling will begin in the winter of 2019 and 2020, coldest by 2024. In 1665, we see the same configuration of the gas giant planets started last Mini Ice Age.

You believe in a myth that there is a close correlation between CO2 and temperature as the Earth's temperatures increase and decrease over the last 400,000 years, remember correlation doesn't imply causation. The fact is that since 1999, there have been multiple technical, peer-reviewed studies that are readily available, that demonstrate just the opposite conclusion. Along with the evidence of the geological record, these studies show that CO2 always lagged temperature changes as they either increase or decrease. In every case, the temperature changed first followed by a several hundred years gap in the change in CO2. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change. Can you prove that's not the case?

Now think about the rhythmic patterns of the Earth's seasons, what makes the changes in the seasons? Obviously, it is the strong solar-orbital cycles, such cycles also influence long-term term patterns in the Earth's climate. Now, a question of logic: since the Earth's CO2 levels have no influence and therefore, can't drive solar-orbital cycles, you might logically see why many scientists doubt the popular notion that “CO2 Is the driver of global warming” argument.

Perhaps you might reconsider your cognitive bias.

@Daryl

If that's the case, that you rely upon experts, then why do you ignore experts and their peer-reviewed scientific studies that contradict your preconceived bias. You see there is a difference, I've read studies on both sides, both those studies supporting the AGW theory and those studies which objectively deny the theory based on observational evidence. Unlike you I've reached my conclusion after several decades of study on the subject. I dare say you didn't even read the points I made in my rebuttal otherwise, you would be able to offer some counter-points. In a similar fashion you can say that you have read studies from either side of the argument therefore, that leads me to conclude that you base your stance on a cognitive bias, it is, I understand, a defensive mental mechanism which you have repeatedly exhibited. I can reach that conclusion based on the manner of your responses, as well as your continued use of certain projections to support your stance without actually reading scientific material on the subject on either side of the isle.

I have, since we began this discussion, provided you with links to ample peer-reviewed sctentific papers, published in esteemed Scientific Journals that span the last 30 years of research, would you like to place a bet that you have not bothered to read a single one of them? So instead you base your belief on a discredited website and on specific articles that you were able to Google in support of your position, am I right? If therefore, you have not examined the evidence on both sides of the issue can you honestly say that your position is based on nothing other than faith?

@Daryl

Sure you ignore those experts, you've provided ample evidence of that fact and you can neither provide a single study that you've read on the subject, not have you been capable of rebutting a single point that I've made, you rather deflect with your usual repetitious response. Why is that?

Here is an expert for you, he happens to be on your side of the argument and even he refutes the entire 97% Consensus that has been used as nothing more than a social proof, not a scientific one, it has been used as a powerful psychological motivator, especially among those who don't actually research or read actual peer-reviewed scientific studies or research. You are a prime example of just how effective it has been.

“The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

• Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University.

Yet, you still believe because it's the only thing you can cling to as a defense.

Here are several articles, again from highly scientific journals and other media, including some of the scientists that were included in John Cooks paper, such as Lindzen, Christie, Tol, Spencer and others who Cook included as proponents of AGW, who are most definitely not, that itself should cause any inquisitive person to question the veracity of the claim:

[dx.doi.org]

[dx.doi.org]

[dx.doi.org]

[marshall.org]

[joannenova.com.au]

[joannenova.com.au]

[joannenova.com.au]

[populartechnology.net]

[richardtol.blogspot.co.uk]

[richardtol.blogspot.co.uk]

[richardtol.blogspot.com]

[rankexploits.com]

[rankexploits.com]

[rankexploits.com]

[rankexploits.com]

[staatvanhetklimaat.nl]

[conservativeblog.org]

[missoulian.com]

“It is important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true.” (Waddington, 1941)

A 2016 survey of American Meteorological Society members, which is interestingly mentioned in your Scientific American article as part of the 97%– the only scientific body whose full membership has been polled – found only 36% report primarily negative impacts from climate change in the area they cover (which, cumulatively, is the whole country).

Rather than believe an article, even by Scientific American, go to the source:
[gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com]

Now I've asked this before, have you actually read John Cook et al 2013? Have you actually looked at the methodology his group used to conduct the study and reach the conclusion that 97% of all scientists explicitly agree that global warming is not only real but has Anthropogenic origins? If not then why are you placing the degree of faith in it without looking at the actual report and the numbers used to arrive at that figure?

In a recent study you will find that satellite data shows that there has been no warming since 1997, now that fact flies directly in the face of the entire AGW theory, in fact one of the IPCC Assessments confessed that climate scientists are struggling to explain the lack of warming in light of their theory.

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com]

Are you aware of the study of Agnotology? It is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.

In the study of Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, [link.springer.com] had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, [link.springer.com] seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists.

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res [link.springer.com] found the 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

When you actually look at the methodology of Cook et al 2013, you find that it is solely based on the survey of 11,944 papers on global warming that had been published from 1991 through 2012. They did not read the papers or talk to the authors, but they did read the abstracts. The survey itself wasn't even scientific methodology.

Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne declared a commonsense response and rightly so:

“In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly.
If 97 percent of scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change, you’d think they would be busting a gut to vanquish climate sceptics in public debates. Instead, many scientists and activists are expressing confected outrage at the possibility of public debates because the science is settled. After all, 97 per cent of scientists agree that human emissions drive global warming and there is no need for further discussion.
In my 50-year scientific career, I have never seen a hypothesis where 97 per cent of scientists agree. At any scientific conference there are collections of argumentative sods who don’t agree about anything, argue about data, how data was collected and the conclusions derived from data. Scepticism underpins all science, science is underpinned by repeatable validated evidence and scientific conclusions are not based on a show of hands, consensus, politics or feelings. Scientists, just like lawyers, bankers, unionists, politicians and those in all other fields, can make no claim to being honest or honourable, and various warring cliques of scientists have their leaders, followers, outsiders and enemies. Scientists differ from many in the community because they are allegedly trained to be independent. Unless, of course, whacking big research grants for climate “science” are waved in front of them.”

Here are several other links that you might find interesting, read them and give me a scientific critique and you're welcome to provide me with any scientific study you choose that supports the AGW Theory and I'll also provide a scientific critique:

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[researchgate.net]

[researchgate.net]

[sciencedirect.com]

[openjournals.gela.org.ge]

[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[ann-geophys.net]

[archives.datapages.com]

[link.springer.com]

[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[eike-klima-energie.eu]

[journalrepository.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[clim-past.net]

[researchgate.net]

[link.springer.com]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[journals.ametsoc.org]

[onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.cc]

[arxiv.org]

[irjaes.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[irsm.cas.cz]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[jstage.jst.go.jp]

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

[aip.scitation.org]

[arxiv.org]

[downloads.hindawi.com]

[14.139.47.23]

[link.springer.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[clim-past.net]

[orbi.ulg.ac.be]

[researchgate.net]

[link.springer.com.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[adsabs.harvard.edu]

[sciencedirect.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[researchgate.net]

[link.springer.com]

[mdpi.com]

[geology.gsapubs.org]

[link.springer.com.secure.sci-hub.cc]

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[benthamopen.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[jstage.jst.go.jp]

[link.springer.com]

[link.springer.com]

[researchgate.net]

[file.scirp.org]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[nature.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[arxiv.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[clim-past.net]

[sciencedirect.com]

[researchgate.net]

[nature.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[nature.com]

[geology.gsapubs.org.sci-hub.cc]

[researchgate.net]

[tandfonline.com]

[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[phys.org]

[clim-past.net]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[sciencedirect.com]

@Daryl

Let me ask you, if the AGW Theory is real, then why did the EU, led, surprisingly, by none other than Germany, repudiate the Clarbon Neutrality 2050 targets that was part of the climate accords? It was fun while it lasted I suppose, but thankfully people are coming to their senses slowly as one more Climate Alarmist policy fails.

Another hopeful sign is that the Dutch have just elected the Forum voor Democratie Party, is what you might call a AGW Skeptic Party, rejecting the fake science.

The European Peoples Party EEP and the Liberal Party ALDE have blocked climate change activist Greta Thunberg from speaking in the European Union Parliament.

P.S. in an actual peer-reviewed study only 36% of Geologists and Geophysical Engineers agree with the rapidly defunct theory of AGW.

A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues. The AMS conducted is own survey and found that only 30% agreed with the AGW theory.

@Daryl

“I think these things are beyond the point of debate. Experts don't debate AGW's existence and source any more. They debate things like how bad, how fast, who will win and who will lose and where winners and losers will be.”

That statement is almost word for word what the world-renowned Physicist Lord Kelvin said "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"

Yet you haven't a clue do you? There is, in fact [not in your fictional world], a massive amount of debate occurring about the existence of, and the fundamental science behind the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You have built a very intellectually insular world for yourself. For God's Sake READ more than just the pablum you are being spoon-fed. It is frankly disturbing that you even believe what you wrote!

@Daryl

Let's take a look at some observational evidence, otherwise known as empirical, shall we?

At one time Orange County Florida was the Orange Capital of the world, I remember driving through miles and miles of Orange Groves, today you can barely find one because of it simply got too cold to grow them. In fact people used to be able to grow Oranges and other citrus plants as far north as North Carolina, bit not anymore.

The same can be said for Avocados, there were once Avocado Ranches growing above San Jose, today you won't find many, if any remaining, the climate is now too cold.

Now based on the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming just the opposite should be taking place, but it isn't. Why?

Again take a look at the climatic trend found within the geological record in the attached below:

@Daryl

Now, this may well go over your head if you are not familiar with solar and planetary celestial mechanics as they govern climate change on the Earth.

Food for thought, which I admit, I'm addicted to: What would the climate of the Earth be like without the moon? The answer to that question will open the door to your understanding why CO2 is not, nor could it be the primary driver of the Earth's climate and why there are a vast multitude of variables and factors that are at work in this masterpiece of creation.

You will not find any AGW scientists even mention the fact the Sun has dual-core 'Barycenter' that is the center for the simple reason that they think that CO2 is the primary driver of modern climate and thus the ridiculous focus on a minor element. The Barycenter is the cause of the Sun exchanging angular momentum with Jupiter, Saturn, and also to that of the two other gas planetary giants, Uranus and Neptune.
Despite the bogus claims of those who promote the AGW theory, there are massive influences within our Solar System, and I dare say, within our Milky Way Galaxy, on the climate of the Earth.

Certain forces within and without the Sun causes magnetic reversals within the sun, it appears that when the Barycenter moves the sun's magnetic poles begin to flip. Of course, the AGW science camp already had all the answers, the science is, as you have repeatedly noted in your comments: SETTLED.

However, it is absolutely essential to understand that the Solar System functions, along with with the modulation of the planets, especially the Gas Giants, on both the climate and weather of Earth. The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a One-Horse Theory and I've yet to read a single peer-reviewed study by the AGW camp that includes the multitude of variables that actually force climate, bit present and in the past, within their research, and that fact alone voids the theory.

The Barycenter Sun, for half the integral solar cycle (solar magnetic activity cycle) for 11-22 years and with it magnetic pole reversal, the barycenter then gradually slips further away from the center of the Sun causing shifts in polarity.Our Sun is impelled by its own spheroidal unisonal vortex that processes in a two-axis spin and while most people don't understand that our Sun itself is in a spiral trajectory as it
travels through space dragging the planets along in their elliptical orbits. In its travel there is a consolidating vortical motion on the Sun will then cause the Sun to isotropically radiate highly charged particles by the reactive centrifugal forces of its vortices.

Because of the Isotropic Vortical spin it causes harmonic radiation at various wavelengths that havever both direct and indirect effects on the climate of Earth and the other planets in our Solar System. With this forced pushing of angular momentum, protons and electrons are ejected by a reactive centrifugal force we know as Solar Wind, of which best is just an effect of these mechanisms.

Now, it has been commonly noted by AGW science, wording to their theory, that the Sun plays an insignificant role in the Earth's climate and, again, that the main driver is CO2, they also see no role for other influences from the other planets within our Solar System even though the gravitational forces are profound, even the moon has a gravitational effect not only in the surface of the Earth, but also on the climate. So, just as you have repeatedly demonstrated, it is virtually impossible for AGW adherents to think outside of the tiny CO2 box or seemingly top understand that there are far more powerful forces that affect our climate than 0.04% of atmospheric CO2, man-made, volcanic or degassed. The theory violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

The fact is that our Sun revolves around the Braycenter and in a full integral cycle of 20 years, these cycles affect all the planets, including Earth. Unlike the AGW “climatologists” who spout man-made as though it were factual can't seem to apply the principle rule of that astrophysical cause equals geophysical effects. There is a very good reason why all of their climate models have failed to forecast the last 40 years, much less predict the next 100. It is evident that the AGW don't follow the principle that local physical laws are determined by the immense mechanical structure of the physical laws of our Solar System and, in particular, Earth. They seem to believe in a static sun. That is one big reason they have been unable to forecast climate change with their computer models, that just happen to have a predetermined algorithm, Junk In = Junk Out and when it was revealed that most of the Peer-Reviewed Papers were reviewed by AGW scientists and then published as though they were held-up as valid science. Such abuse of peer-reviewed was found in the IPCC echo-chamber.

The very idea behind the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming fails either recognize, must less consider, any influential factor other than their central lop-sided theme of CO2. It takes about 59.3 years for both planets and the Sun to complete one long cycle.

Other significant precession cycles with longer orbital periods involve two other large planets - Uranus and Neptune.The climate periods of the Sun's lowered output, like the Sporer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum, coincided with extremely cold climates on Earth. Findings from isotope carbon-14 on Earth showed a lag with the Earth's temperature that correlated with solar activities.

The Little Ice Age had a low solar output that resulted in cold climate minimal in 1650, 1770 and 1850. They all took place during superior conjunctions of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn alignments with all the other planets edging the Sun to positions that were nearest to their significant barycenters. In 2024 we will face a similar conjunction, now if history repeats itself as it has throughput the geological record then that will effectively end the AGW Theory and create an embarrassment in that particular community of scientists as they will be discredited as false prognosticators who have wasted time on skimpy research, massive amounts of money, and created a global misdirection of governments. Oh there's going to be Climate Chage, just as there always have been, indications are however, based on repetitive patterns throughout the geological record, astrological influences, it's looking like we are once again facing a change that we haven't seen since the Little Ice Age.

You should get ready!

Here are some graphs, please show me the modern warming trend, not anomalies.

@Daryl

“I think these things are beyond the point of debate. Experts don't debate AGW's existence and source any more.” In other words: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now.”

“They debate things like how bad, how fast,” In other words: " All that remains is more and more precise measurement"

In other words, you not only said essentially the very same thing, but like him you have made a logical fallacy. But that's nothing new, most of your comments are filled with such fallacies. You'll have to do much better than that...

@Daryl

Again you are quoting Skeptical Science where John Cook is defending himself, did you even read that piece? Let me ask you if you read a single one of the Studies you cited, I can lay odds that you didn't, did you, be honest, honest with me and more importantly be honest with yourself.

If you once again look at the actual numbers consider them and the fact that there was no actual interviews with scientists, nor did Cooks team read the studies, they only read the summaries of the papers, that is explained in Cooks paper. The pic below is an actual break down of the paper, look at it carefully. 97%, sure, keep believing.

@Daryl

Did you read any of those papers? Did you read the one by Hornsey, Matthew J., Harris, Emily A., Bain, Paul G., & Fielding, Kelly S. (2016)? That particular paper, which concerned itself with BELIEF, but had nothing to do with the actual science. In fact, few of the papers you cite, and I'm familiar with several of them, don't make solid defense of the AGW theory.

M Saunois et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 120207 concerns the subject of the possibility of methane influencing climate change because of the drastic cuts in global CO2 emissions since 2013. Which, by the way, raises all types of questions since even the IPCC has questioned why temperatures have not increased since 1997 or the so-called Hiatus.

Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests
John T. Abatzogloua,1 and A. Park Williamsb, interestingly the U.S. Forest Service historical data proves that wildfires have drastically decreased, the highest record of wildfire was in 1929 and 1930, the 1930s was, in particular, the hottest decade in modern times. The U.S. Forest Service records for 2017, a year after the paper you cited, show that it was 1/5th or the wildfires in record. So, based on official U.S. Forest Service records the conclusions of that paper don't match official physical data by the government.

It's hard for me to believe that you are citing a paper by the now discredited James Hansen. In his: Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: an assessment of their relative roles in global climate change. James E. Hansen & Andrew A. Lacis, interestingly this paper is written by James Hansen, a scientist who when working with NASA, was said by his superiors to be less than a reputable scientist and would have been fired if the administrational structure would have allowed such termination. Back in 2008, James Hansen of NASA predicted that the Arctic would be free of sea ice by summer 2018. He based his prediction on the AGW theory and climate models, this is the man that's considered the “father of Global Warming”, now think about that for a moment. Yet, you cite this charlatan, but that's typical.

Hansen has even changed his own story from 2009 he said:

“We cannot afford to put off [climate policy] change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

By 2016, Hansen no longer saw an urgency in the reduction of man-made emissions, inserted of immediate action he pushed it to decades of centuries, but how is that possible if AGW is indeed such a menace to our existence?:

“Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.”

If you look at Dr. Hansen's work it seems that he has come to the conclusion that climate sensitivity is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as it was once thought to be in his original scenarios from 1988. The fact it that his work turned out to be 150% wrong! Yet, you cite a man that has been proven wrong and has finally admitted it to a degree.

Under Hansen's watch GISS is well-known for headline-grabbing media claims that “NASA warns hottest day, month, or year.” They have a long history of “tuning” global temperature data and abbreviating recorded timelines to make the past colder in order to have recent temperatures appear remarkably warmer.

Dr. Reto Ruedy of GISS confessed in a Climategate e-mail that GISS had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis, whereby, “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data may not have been correct.”

Nevertheless, we are to just trust NASA when do much of the data they publish has been based on altered raw temperatures their AGW assumptions. In those adjustments entire past climate cycles were essentially erased, lowering past high temperatures while increasing modern temperatures. There is absolutely no scientific credibility left in either NASA or NOAA and yes, there is proof that they have corrupted the data through their parametrization of temperatures.

Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham expressed his serious concerns about NASA. He wrote, “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible. In the last 20 years I watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust.”

Now some interesting happened in 2013 when one of the top NASA scientist Jim Bridenstine, an advocate of the AGW theory, said before Congress: “Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. — long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution — temperatures were warmer than today. During the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 A.D., temperatures were cooler. Neither of these periods were caused by any human activity.”

Duane Thresher, a former GISS employee for seven years, posted a letter to the prospective new NASA administrator stating a abysmal lack of GISS science competence and integrity, wrote that when bureaucrats decided that global warming was the next big thing, there was a huge influx of money and unqualified people who spent it including opportunists, carpetbaggers with the corrupt and ignoble.

Interestingly, James Hansen was a confidant to Al Gore, and profited off of the whole AGW scare. His supervisor at NASA Dr. John S. Theon, said “It is tragic to see the agency that applied solid science to put humans the Moon become publicly identified with and misrepresented by a junk science-premised climate alarm propaganda machine. While no one I know denies that natural climate changes, it’s high time for a political climate change that gets NASA back to doing reliable science we can once again trust.”

John Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

John Theon stated: “As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs, an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

Given these highly reputed Scientists, all of who work or worked when NASA, have defected from the AGW theory, the question in your mind should be WHY?

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”Duane Thresher’s advice should be heeded, “NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.”

Interesting, isn't it, that so many Canadian Scientists and Russian Scientist, along with from every other country, including over 31,000 American Scientists deny AGW, but you wouldn't know that would you?

Some of the most preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, the Father of the German Green movement, said: “For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory, my recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.”

Vahrenholt was an actual IPCC Reviewer and he even changed his view, why?

Why have many of the most prominent Scientists noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies. Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;

Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;

Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and

Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.

Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University;

Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace;

Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University;

Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;

Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;

Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;

Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.

Let's look at the IPCC, shall we?

In a study conducted by John McLean stated: “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.”

[Notice just how settled the science is by the IPCC] In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence.

In a related finding, McLean observes, “The dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.”

Adds McLean, “The problems continue into the authorship of these reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.”

Please note, the number of scientists in the IPCC report that the organization may honestly be able to say have endorsed the IPCC’s AGW catastrophism, is more on the order of 50-60 individuals, not 4,000. That is a very significant discrepancy, to say the least! It has taken a long time for the thousands of AGW skeptics (or “climate realists,” as many prefer to be called) to come to the fore. Why is that?

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a former AGW believer himself, says most scientists are so busy in their own specialties that, like most laymen, they don’t consider that the “consensus” may be completely contrived. But that has changed, he says. “Each one of us was working in his or her own niche,” says Shaviv. “While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW picture. So many had to change their views.”

Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”

Thus, the dogmatic wall that you shield your cognitive bias behind is crumbling, your problem is that you haven't realized it yet, but as more and more scientist repudiate the fake science and as the climate itself debunks the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

@Daryl

Ok, again you are citing another unreputable cite, Climate Central, really?

The first thing that calls in the credibility is Climate Central is a ridiculous climate model that forecasts how hot it will be at every point in the lower US out to 2100. No real scientist believes that this is possible, not even the alarmists among them. This blurb explains what is clearly a politically motivated hoax:

“Climate Central has developed a new web-interactive tool that brings the reality of future heat to hometowns across the U.S. Simply enter the name of your city, town or hamlet — or any place in the Lower 48 that piques your curiosity — to see how the number of days above summer temperature thresholds will change throughout the rest of the century. The interactive also shows how reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help reduce the heat.”

They say this is how local temperatures “will change,” not might change, which would still be hyperbolic and unscientific. This is purely alarmist speculation presented as factual news.

Moreover, Climate Central does not stop with putting out fake news stories. They grind out alarmism that is specifically designed to be used by TV weathercasters. This propaganda generating feature is called “Climate Matters” and they describe it this way:

“Climate Matters provides meteorologists with data & graphics on local weather events and their link to climate change. Unlike climate scientists, TV meteorologists have unparalleled access to their communities. Through Climate Matters, Climate Central provides regularly produced content on the relationship between weather and climate. Our team of data analysts, meteorologists, climate experts, graphic artists and journalists create graphics, text, animations, videos and research to aid TV weathercasters in presenting science-rooted climate information in clear, concise and relevant ways.”

These supposed links to climate change are of course just more of the model-based nonsense they report as news. This content is carefully crafted using software that is compatible with that used by the TV stations, plus it is all free. No wonder it is widely used to promote climate alarmism.

In other words Daryl, this type of website was specifically created for people just like you!

@Daryl

Ok then let's just see how overwhelming that evidence really is, if it is so overwhelming then why on Earth would would the very Scientists hired by the IPCC to review it's AR5 Assessment say that the evidence is, in fact, not overwhelmingly in the least?

The following are the analysis’ of just a few of the Reviewers that were assigned by the IPCC to review the IPCC AR5 Assessment, now after reading these Official Reviews tell me that AGW Science is settled or for that matter, that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a certainty...

“The attribution to human emissions of « more than half » of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s is insufficiently substantiated and inadequately related to experimental facts. I would no longer argue if « roughly one tenth » would replace « more than half » in sentences of SPM like SPM 6 3-4 and SPM 10 8-9. « More than half » actually is contradicted by observations and data analyses for the reasons developed throughout this report as well as in my Report On the AR5 FOD, hereafter referenced as ROFOD. Franc?ois Gervais, France”

“Today, the optimal approach for sea ice projections is not clear, although one notes that these18 methods should have a credible underlying physical basis in order to increase their reliability (12.50, line 17). Add: because the models CMIP3 and CMIP5 and RCP models lacks sufficient data on changes in sea ice volume. (I suggest to put this idea at this chapter.) [CELSO COPSTEIN WALDEMAR, BRAZIL”

“There are many Arctic climatic processes that are omitted from, or poorly represented in, most current- generation GCMs. These processes include the following: oceanic eddies, tides, fronts, buoyancy-driven coastal and boundary currents, cold halocline, dense water plumes and convection, double diffusion, surface/bottom mixed layer, sea ice–thickness distribution, concentration, deformation, drift and export, fast ice, snow cover, melt ponds and surface albedo, atmospheric loading, clouds and fronts, ice sheets/caps and mountain glaciers, permafrost, river runoff, and air–sea ice–land interactions and coupling. Maslowski, W., J. C. Kinney, M. Higgins and A. Roberts (2012), The future of Arctic sea ice, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 625-654, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345 [CELSO COPSTEIN WALDEMAR, BRAZIL”

“Diagnosing the sources of simulation uncertainty is difficult because polar systems are tremendously complex, involving a myriad of geospheric, biospheric, and anthropospheric interactions at many scales. This presents difficulties in understanding sources of uncertainty,whether it derives from the nature of regional interactions, global interconnectivity, or models. Maslowski, W., J. C. Kinney, M. Higgins and A. Roberts (2012), The future of Arctic sea ice, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 625-654, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth- 042711-105345 [CELSO COPSTEIN WALDEMAR, BRAZIL”

“O. Humlum et al conclude : « 2. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. 3. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. 4. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. » More important, they also conclude : « 5. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. 6. CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently have little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions ». [Franc?ois Gervais,”

“I am afraid that to continue to ignore such a key and crucial set of observations and correlations will be qualified as cherry picking and will disqualify the entire AR5 report. I have checked that the authors of AR5 display a preference to cite their own work or those of their coauthors in the past throughout FOD and SOD. But even if they do not recognize a clear correlation in a work of non-IPCC authors, nor a likely causation, they should at least discuss it. They should definitely not ignore it, especially when it is recommended by a reviewer, if they still want to comply with the scientific method. [Franc?ois Gervais, France”

“There is another way to confirm the relatively small anthropogenic fraction of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere after action of carbon sinks which emerges from the observations above. I encourage the IPCC AR5 authors to check that the delta of C13/C12 ratio of –8 permil reported in Fig. TS.3 points to an anthropogenic CO2 fraction in the atmosphere of only ~ 5-6 %, ~ 20 ppm in other words. Such a low level means ~ 0.5 ppm (0.5/390 ~ 0.1 %) of residue of additional anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere each year. It is important to note that this value is consistent with the low annual increase found after a cold year like 1991, the cold being due to the Pinatubo volcanic eruption. [Franc?ois Gervais, France]”

Such a low level of anthropogenic CO2 residue in the atmosphere, and the recommended reduction of consecutive forcing in the RCP8.5 to the level of 0.0025 W/m2 per year already suggested in ROFOD (see arguments developed there), is compatible with climatic observations. The natural variability is quantified by the recovery of the Earth since the last Maunder minimum for example described by S.I. Akasofu (Natural Science 2 (2010) 1211) still not cited and discussed in AR5 SOD in spite of the recommendation of the reviewer in ROFOD, added to multi-decadal oscillations deduced from a Fourier analysis of HadCruT temperature data, as done by N. Scafetta (J. Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 (2009) 1916). This paper is also ignored in the AR5 SOD in spite of the recommendation of the reviewer in ROFOD. [Franc?ois Gervais, France”

“Scafetta found a number of resonances that he compared with the ones corresponding to the motion of the sun with respect to the barycenter of the solar system. He points towards an almost perfect coincidence of the frequencies of the various resonance peaks. The probability that these coincidences be fortuitous is near zero. The main resonance reported by Scafetta corresponds to a ~ 60 years-period oscillation. This is explicitly discussed by A. Mazzarella, N. Scafetta, Theor. Appl. Climatol, DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4, and by C. Loehle and N. Scafetta, Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5 (2011) 74. [Franc?ois Gervais, France]”

"The level of scientific knowledge is....low and uncertainties are very large." It should also be stated that this SPM only considers effects on the carbon cycle; impacts and costs are dealt with in AR5 WG II and WG III. [Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”

“The conclusions of AR5 are built upon the assumption that projected climate changes do not alter the climatic processes modeled. There is no mention of the possibility that anything more than a small perturbation to the climate could alter climatic processes as we currently understand them. It should be mentioned that we assume that climatic processes, as we understand them today, will continue in the future--even if there are changes in emissions and climatic variables. As a corollary, the AR5 should mention that if those processes are altered in a significant way, the conclusions of AR5 could be invalidated. [Julian Levy, U.S.A”

“This chapter is exceptionally poor. It fails to comply with directives to be inclusive, it ignores a natural climate force that can account for most if not all of the observations that you end up blaming on anthropogenic forces, and the claims in this chapter are based on climate models that do not simulate all climate forces with 100% accuracy. This chapter also lacks integrity because it fails to mention the caveats associated with incomplete limate models. [John McLean, Australia]”

“It is strongly suggested to use the same level of uncertainty with respect to information related to possible climate changes, in particular with respect to changes of temperature and sea level rise as well as any changes in ocean aciditiy. Otherwise the reader would be confused. The range of change should be chosen such that there is a high level of confidence that the expected change will fall into the given range because more robust information is needed for the policy level. If the authors feel that different levels of uncertainty should be presented that would also be welcome provided that for all those parameters the same levels of uncertainty are provided. [Klaus Radunsky, Austria]”

“This paragraph refers to the entire "Summary for the policy makers". As detailed above, the Report is built from fraudulent pseudo-scientific constructs based on the AGW dogma, containing no science. Therefore, any conclusions and recommendations presented in this chapter have no scientific backing, and should be expressly ignored. The corrected Summary for policy makers should thus read "There is nothing wrong with our climate. We have no climate problem, and need no solutions for this climate problem. All of the currently implemented solutions to the alleged climate problem should be revoked, effective immediately. We are sorry for defrauding the general public in the previous Reports we have produced so far." [Igor Khmelinskii, Portugal]”

“This paragraph refers to the entire Report. As amply demonstrated above, the current draft Report is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma, adopted uncritically and never questioned. Its climate projections and predictions have no scientific backing and can't be used as a justification for any type of public policies. Similarly, all of the public policies implemented as the result of previous Reports have no scientific backing and should be immediately and entirely revoked and discontinued. [Igor Khmelinskii, Portugal]”

“This paragraph refers to the entire Report. The body of the research that the Report pseudo-scientifically presents as "proof" of the AGW hypothesis is constituted by the primary and direct fraud of the IPCC climate models and general research approach, and by the secondary and indirect fraud of the most of the remaining research that uses these models in the interpretation of climate data, for climate predictions, and in discussing development scenarios for the humanity and for the natural systems. The only research that may be valid as regards to facts (but never as regards their interpretation, because the interpretation is based on fundamentally wrong models) is the research studying current consequences of the climate change. However, this research is non-scientific in its motivation, aiming to provide "proof" for the AGW hypothesis by presenting corroborating evidence (which is a logically impossible task - see Paragraph 3), and largely irrelevant. That because no action humanity might feasibly take could revert the natural phenomena that we are not the cause of in the first place. The Report and the body of research it reviews are therefore a waste of public funds and a scientific fraud. [Igor Khmelinskii, Portugal]”

“This paragraph refers to the entire report, containing final notes for the reader who is not well-versed in the philosophy of science, and should be read in conjunction with all of the previous paragraphs of my Review. Note that I did not need to read the entire draft Report, nor enter into details of each Chapter, in order to understand whether or not the Report is scientifically valid. This is because I am able to produce the judgement of the fraudulent character of this and other previous Climate Reports based on their failure to implement the Scientific Method and question the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is commonly implemented in the form of one or more climate models that are being used to interpret current and past experimental results and make predictions about future climate. In order to attribute the recent global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to human activities, these models have been specifically tuned, by introducing positive climate feedbacks. The draft Report discusses climate models in its Chapter 9, therefore Chapter 9 would be the logical place to implement the Scientific Method and question the validity of the climate models and thus the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Reading through Chapter 9 and its list of references, I find that no such questioning had been done, and no papers that question the validity of climate models have been discussed. By failing to implement the Scientific Method, the authors of Chapter 9 have confirmed their status of pseudo-scientists, having transformed their Chapter into an exercise in dogmatic propaganda. Its fraudulent character is evident from the ease with which these authors could have rejected the AGW hypothesis, same as I had in the present Review. Thus, based on the fraudulent science of Chapter 9, the entire Climate Report looses any connection to the objective reality, becoming a pseudo-scientific construct based on the AGW dogma. Indeed, there may be no Science if one chooses to ignore the Scientific Method, as the Report authors do. Without the Scientific Method, they are limited to the pseudo-scientific and logically faulty search of evidence that "confirms" their AGW hypothesis, stalling the scientific progress and insulting the general public in their expectations of obtaining scientifically valid climate predictions, instead of the climate fraud that over the years of its existence has been, and now once more is being, produced by the IPCC. [Igor Khmelinskii, Portugal]”

“To distinguish between the scientific meaning and the UNFCC's political redefinition, strongly recommend adding a footnote defining: "Herein 'global warming' is defined as an increase in increasing average near surface temperature without attribution. Attribution is distinguished by "anthropogenic global warming" or "natural global warming". [David L. Hagen, United States of America]”

“I had hoped that the IPCC had learned from the devastating published review of their past procedures and results and that the IPCC promise to become more objective and inclusive in authorship and approach would be achieved with this report. The credibility of IPCC has been so badly damaged by the findings of the review panel and by Climategate that the only way it could become credibile in the scientific world was to become an objective scientific body and present all data on all issues, not just biased selected data and invalid model studies. I really hoped that IPCC could become a truly respected scientific body, not just a political expedient. Thus, I am sadly disappointed in this report--it bases conclusions on very incomplete evidence, totally ignores huge volumes of relevant data that doesn't support favored conclusions, includes highly biased opinions and scenarios that are contrary to available physical evidence, excludes many of the world's leading experts, and projects a kind of fairlyland atmosphere where preconceived conclusions trump relevant evidence. This report does nothing to generate credibility in the real scientific world and the general population. [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“Global CO2 concentrations, temperature and sea level are not increasing as rapidly as originally projected, and that other effects of global warming may not prove as damaging as had been thought, is also evaluated.” Reason: The IPCC is now seen as political rather than scientific, and as promoting an extremist viewpoint rather than objectively weighing the evidence in the reviewed literature and data. It should be seen to be making every effort – especially in the Summary for Policymakers – to discuss both sides.
Example: Temperature has not risen for 16 years. In the past 60 years, covering full cooling and warming phases of the ocean oscillations, warming has occurred at a rate equivalent to 1.2 K/century: yet AR4, as the mean central estimate on all six SRES emissions scenarios, projected warming of 2.8 K/century to 2100. The implausibility of the key warming projection in AR4 should now be discussed. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

“The warming that "has been particularly marked since the 1970s" is consistent with what one would expect from about 30 years of dominance of ENSO conditions on the El Nino side of absolutely neutral (ie. SOI=0). The Pacific Climate Shift, not mentioned in this report but mentioned several times in 4AR, marked the switch in ENSO conditions from those dominated by the La Nina side of absolutely neutral to those dominated by the El Nino side. (Refer Trenberth, K.E. (1990), Guilderson, T.P. and Schrag, D.P. (2006), Trenberth, K.E. (1996), Trenberth K.E. and Carron, J.M. (2000), and Trenberth et al (2002) - "Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures" ). Warming is therefore consistent with natural forces. [John McLean, Australia”

“Evidence did NOT form the basis of the IPCC 4AR. There was no credible evidence, only the assertions from climate modellers who seem to believe the output of their models when other chapters of the report showed us that the models could not be accurate. The basis of the 4AR was mere speculation. [John McLean, Australia”

“Predicting the future evolution of a chaotic object demands knowledge of the initial values of its defining parameters to a precision which, in the climate object is and will always be unattainable. Accordingly, it is not possible even on a global scale reliably to predict the future evolution of the climate object in response to a perturbation such as our adding CO2 to the atmosphere. A fortiori, difficulties in regional-scale prediction will be greater still, and the Summary for Policymakers should say so. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      “To provide policymakers with a mature assessment of the difficulties in reliable long-term prediction of future climate states, the Summary for Policymakers should admit that probability density functions are still more problematic than simple central estimates flanked by error-bars.

Reason: Because the climate behaves as a chaotic object, even establishing a reliable, century-long simple central estimate flanked by error bars is not possible. A fortiori, providing projections by way of probability- density functions is impossible, since PDFs require more information than estimates flanked by error-bars, not less. In general, the IPCC follows the modelers in claiming too much certainty for its conclusions. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom”

“This is a disappointing distortion of what the HadCRUT3 and HadSST2 data actually shows, The two sets of data were consistent until 1980, at which time the HadCRUT3 data diverged on the high side from the HadSST2 data. Does that mean an error in the HadCRUT3 data? Has anyone proved that it's not? (And this is not to say that the fault lies in HadCRUT3 data processing; any errors could well be upstream.) [John McLean, Australia]”

“To put the IPCC’s observational findings into perspective, it should make clear at the outset that the physical and biogeochemical state of the oceans and the extent and volume of snow and ice has changed throughout their history; that the changes of the past 40 years are not unprecedented; and that the changes are not necessarily harmful.
Opening chapeau has been significantly revised. Specific changes no longer mentioned in what is meant to be a broad, introductory chapeau. Details on specific changes, and available paleo context, are found in the subsequent statements.
Reason: The wording in the draft to the effect that the hydrosphere and cryosphere have “changed during the past 40 years” or “changed over the latter half of the 20th century” leaves the impression that the changes are unprecedented or at least unusual, when in truth we do not have to this day any adequately long or spatially well-resolved time series for mean sea level, mean oceanic acid-base balance; Arctic or Antarctic land-ice or sea-ice extent or volume; or Northern-Hemisphere snow-cover extent. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom”

“To draw policymakers’ attention to the uncertainties surrounding the IPCC’s projections, it is necessary to explain that since even today’s measurements of key climate indicators are problematic the difficulty in establishing what took place in the paleoclimate is still greater.
Reason: Paleoclimate reconstructions are subject to large uncertainties and are less capable of providing definitive indications of the likely future evolution of today’s climate than IPCC Assessment Report have been willing to admit. In particular, the quantitative information they provide is uncertain. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

“The CRU tells us that there has been no statistically significant warming for almost 16 years. This is only slightly shorter than the period of general warming that started in the late 1970s. In total we've only observed warming in the first half of the last 32 years. That's hardly "unequivocal" or anything to get excited about. [John McLean, Australia]”

“I disagree with the conclusion of unequivocal. The only thing that is really unequivocal is the CO2 concentration. For global temperature this really is not the case. First as it now shown in chapter 2, warming between 1910-1940 was similar to the more recent warming period. Then if we go back a little further it's far from clear whether global temperature is now higher than 1000 years ago. Multiproxy reconstructions still have lots of problems and I don't think any of them can be regarded as solid at this moment (this includes the one from Loehle that skeptics prefer). The real uncertainties around such reconstructions are huge and prevent drawing strong conclusions. If we go further back in time we had the Holocene Thermal Maximum when in Greenland it was warmer than it is now. During the last interglacial it was warmer than now and sea levels were higher. [Marcel Crok, The Netherlands]”

“It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface,which would require random placement of thermometers over the entire earth's surface, let alone the "climate system" which means the entire atmosphere,.so you cannot tell whether either is "warming" The claim that the whole lot is warming "unequivocally" fs therefore without scientific or observational foundation and is thus more the nature of a political slogan or a religious belief than a scientically established conclusion. Also you do not state over what period tuis "warming" is supposed to be happening. Then, according to the unreliable "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" there ishas been no warming for the past ten years. How "unequivocal" is that? [Vincent Gray, New Zealand”

“This statement about stronger confidence of 'unprecedented' changes is not supported by the evidence. In fact there is less confidence in the paleo data, see for example the paper by statisticians McShane and Wyner (“proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series&rdquo. See sec 5.3.5.2 on limitations and uncertainties. [Paul Matthews, United Kingdom]”

“May I respectfully suggest start the discussion of findings with changes in atmospheric composition, ghg's, aerosols, which are not only drivers of change of the physical climate but are themselves changes in the chemical climate of the planet that are more confidently known, and more confidently attributed to human activity. Then get into changes in the physical climate. This ordering also follows more logically the cause and effect train. [Stephen E Schwartz, United States of America]”

“The statement "many changes .....are ....unprecedented on time scales of decades to many hundreds of thousands of years is completely false. The same climatic changes that have occurred during the past century have occurred many, many times at all time scales (decades, centuries, millenia). Atmospheric and oceantemperature measurements, historical observations, isotope data from ice cores, glacial fluctuations, tree ring measurements, pollen changes, ocean sediments, and many other records of past climatic changes demonstrate many climate changes at all time scales (see peer-reviewed summary in Easterbrook, 2011, Evidence-based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc). This is supposed to be a scientific document and such false statements have no place in a document like this. [Don Easterbrook, United States of America”

“To render the wording more neutral and scientifically credible, the words “Confidence is stronger that many changes that are observed consistently across components of the climate system are significant, unusual or unprecedented on times scales of decades to many hundreds of thousands of years” should be deleted. Reason: Since there has been no warming since the previous Assessment Report, there is manifestly no observational evidence to support the offending sentence. The only potential adverse consequence of CO2 enrichment that does not follow from warming is a putative alteration of the acid-base balance of the oceans: however, no global time series of sufficient length or steric resolution to draw any conclusion is yet available. Therefore the offending sentence, scientifically speaking, is fiction. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

“To correct an incomplete and misleading statement, the words “Widespread warming is observed from the surface of the Earth throughout the troposphere” should be replaced by the following: “Warming of ~0.6 K has been observed over the past 60 years, but this rate of warming is within natural variability, though an anthropogenic component may be present. No warming has been observed since the Third Assessment Report was published in 2001: indeed, there has been no statistically significant global warming for 16 years.” Reason: The warming observed since 1900 is well within natural variability. Warming at a rate equivalent to 4 K/century was observed in central England in the 70 years 1695-1735 during the recovery of solar activity after the Maunder Minimum: historical evidence suggests this rate may have been global. It is important not to mislead policymakers: therefore, the fact that there has been no warming since the two previous Assessment Reports must be made explicit. The statement that “Widespread warming is observed” when it has not been observed for 16 years is calculated to deceive. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

“Please provide an explanation why the global mean temperature has not increased from 1998 until recent years, while the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased considerably in the same period. [Government of Netherlands]”

“Your claim that you have measured "globally averaged" near surface: temperature is untrue. In order to do so it would be necessary to distribute thermometers randomly over the entire surface of the earth, including oceans deserts and forests. The "global surface temperature anomaly" which you quote is very far from such a scientifically based system as it consists of multiple averages based on unrepresentative samples from non standardized conditions which have very large uncertainties and biases which greatly exceed the supposed :warming,: and are never estimated. [Vincent Gray, New Zealand]”

“The statement "Each of the last three decades has been significantly warmer than all preceding decades since 1850" is completely contradicted by NOAA temperature data (see peer-reviewed data in Easterbrook, 2011, Evidence-based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc) which clearly shows that the decade of the 1930's was the warmest of the century. NOAA confirms that 82% of all maximum records were set prior to 1960 (prior to the accelerated growth of human CO2 emissions) 372,989 daily high temperatures have been recorded in the US since 1895. 84% of them were set when CO2 was below 0.035%. Therefore you cannot legitimately make the claim in the statement above! [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“To give a more complete picture of temperature trends, add the following bullet point: “The maximum rate of warming that persisted for more than a decade since global surface-temperature records began in 1850 was 0.17 K/decade, equivalent to 1.7 K/century. That rate occurred from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1976-2001.” Reason: It is significant that the greatest supra-decadal warming rate observed since global records began is little more than half the mean 21st-century warming rate predicted by the IPCC. It is also significant that the rapid warming from 1976-2001 was not unprecedented, having occurred twice before during the instrumental record. On the earlier two occasions, the human influence on climate was negligible, suggesting that our influence on the third period of warming may similarly have been small. Failure to discuss points such as this in the Summary for Policymakers is calculated to mislead the readers. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

“It is suggested that the observations that the global warming was slowing down over the past dozen years be added to the text describing the global warming, that is, the following sentence be inserted after “2010”, which reads: “It is likely that the global averaged surface temperature and global upper ocean heat content show little increase or even negative trend since 2000”. Also, the following sentence be inserted in Line 49, Page 5, which reads: “It is likely that rising rate of the global mean sea level since 2000 is smaller than that in the earlier 1990s [Figure 3.13]”. [Government of China”

“Cherry picking. You choose the Arctic but not the Antarctic where ice mass is increasing. No actual temperature measurements are ever made so changes may be due to changes in the temperature of ocean currents or in the amount of precipitation. Arctic ice has fluctuated in the past when we did not have the sophisticated measurement systems. There is evidence that Arctic ice size fluctuates [Vincent Gray, New Zealand]”

“Much biased estimates on limited data. where surface temperatures are rarely measured and sometimes affected by oceans or precipitation changes. The increase in Arctic ice and the extent of some glaciers seems neglected and historical perspective ignored. All this has certainly happened before. [Vincent Gray, New Zealand]”

“The statement that "the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost mass since the early 1990s" may well be true, but what about pre-1990? Temperature records show that Greenland was warmer in the l930s than since 1990 and ice was undoubtedly also lost then. However, during the 1945 to 1977 global cooling the ice sheet grew. Leaving out this higihly significant data is scientifically dishonest because the IPCC statement implies that the Greenland Ice Sheet is continually losing ice, rather than fluctuating between gains and losses. Because the warm climate of the 1930s occurred prior to the sharply increased human CO2 emission, Greenland doesn't prove anything about the cause of global warming--if anything it shows the these changes are natural and have nothing to do with CO2! [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“The statement that "the Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently losing ice" is contrary to well documented data. Some ice has been lost in the West Antarctic Peninsula, but this is NOT the main ice sheet (the East Antarctic Ice Sheet)! The next statement contradicts the topic sentence in this paragraph--"East Antarctica is likely to have experienced a small gain in mass." Since the East Antarctic ice sheet is many times larger than the small glaciers on the West Antarctic Peninsula, how can the Antarctic Ice Sheet be "losing mass?" Very bad conclusion! [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“NOAA has confirmed that Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979 and is now higher than any previous period of record. The IPCC statement seems to attempt to minimize that fact. [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“To provide historical perspective, delete the sentence “It is unequivocal that global mean sea level is rising as is evident from tide gauge records and satellite data”, and substitute “Global mean sea level has been rising since at least 1850, but rates of increase since 1993 may be no greater than those observed from 1930-1950.” Reason: The current draft of the highlighted paragraph on sea level does not provide a proper historical perspective. In the Summary for Policymakers, highlighted paragraphs in particular must be presented in a balanced manner. It is very far from clear that there has been any significant acceleration in the rate of sea- level rise as a result of recent anthropogenic warming.”

“The IPCC graph shows a very constant sea level rise of 160mm from 1900 to 2000, an average of 1.6 mm/year. During some short periods the rate of rise varied from -3 mm/yr to +3 mm/year but overall was remarkably constant for the century. Thus, the expected sea level rise from 2000 to 2100 is about the same, i.e., 160 mm (about 6 inches), a far cry from claims of rapidly increasing rise of sea level to the 5-20 feet by 2100 claimed by CO2 advocates. There is no evidence whatsoever that this sea level rise rate will change significantly in the coming century (models are NOT evidence and not substitute for real data!). [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“The statement about period between 1930 and 1950 must be motivated in the text to make this Summary for policymakers self explanatory. The sentence is unclear, explain what 'latter' refers to; is it to the 'latter range'? The first sentence is misleading. It names two mean rates of increase which come from different measuring methodologies. The first range comes from tide gauge data. Considering analysis of the stations by Holgate (2007), and update them up to 2011 (see PMSL website for data), all series show very linear behavior. If any, some decelerations are seen. The second range comes from satellite data. These cover the range 1993-2011. All presentations on the Internet are linear. None of the specialized agencies present a trend with acceleration. By putting these two ranges in one sentence, acceleration is suggested to the reader. Note: the series of Church and White (2011) is a mixture of tide gauge data and satellite information (it is in fact model output) . If a quadratic curve is fitted through their data from the inflexion point 1930 to 2009, the acceleration parameter is statistically non-significant. Thus none of the three types of global sea level approximations show accelerations (i.e. a positive second derivative in math terms), from 1930 onwards. In conclusion: data from different origins should not mixed in one sentence. To continue with the second sentence: it is unclear how the series from two or three origins are mixed in this sentence. We suggest to explicitly name the three different sources and their mean rates/ yes or no acceleration. [Government of Netherlands”

“The stated 40% and 10% increase in CO2 are meaningless--40% of nothing is still nothing! A much more meaningful numer is the actual increase of the amount of atmospheric CO2. The real increase in CO2 is a mere 0.009% since 1945, not enough to cause any significant global warming! [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“There is a complete mismatch between measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which take place almost exclusively over the ocean, and emissions, which take place almost exclusively over land surfaces, This means that there is no scientifically observed relationship between them. The figures in this section ar therefore subject to unknown inaccuracy [Vincent Gray, New Zealand]”

“CO2 in the oceans exchanges with the atmosphere depending on temperature. Thus, during periods of ocean warming (as claimed by IPCC), much more CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere than is taken in from the 0.008% increase in atmospheric CO2. Thus, such a small increase in atmospheric CO2 is incapable of significantly increasing oceanic CO2 and making it more acidic. [Don Easterbrook, United States of America”

“It is wrong to assume that the pH of the ocean is uniform. There are parts which currently emit carbon dioxide and are presumably saturated, without evident harm to the local flora and fauna. Increased dissolved carbon dioxide would merely increase these areas, encouraging creatures that benefit, and adoption by evolution for others [Vincent Gray, New Zealand]”

“Whoever wrote this nonsense obviously did not bother to read the voluminous literature on this issue. Recently published data shows conclusively that the Medieval Warm Period was slightly warmer than present and was global in extent (there are several thousand peer reviewed publications with conclusive data showing this). Several different lijnes of data not only show consistently higher temperatures during the Medieval warm period but also demonstrate that is was global, not just regional. Greenland ice core data and global glacial fluctuations demonstrate that all but the last few millenia of the past 10,000 years was 1-3 degrees C warmer than present. The 1981-2010 was NOT the warmest 30 year period of the past 1300--it wasn't even the warmest 30 year period of this century (see NOAA and satellite temp records). IPCC could improve its very shaky credibility in the scientific world by employing writers who bother to actually read the literature. [Don Easterbrook, United States of America]”

“Genuine globally averaged temperatures cannot be measured. These conclusions are based on highly inaccurate methods for which inaccuracies and biases are far greater than the increases claimed. The period covered is very small on a geological scale and the estimates by the biased experts are worthless [Vincent Gray, New Zealan”

NOTE THE 450 PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES:

“To restore lost credibility, the IPCC must make a less partisan and more impartial appraisal of the extensive peer-reviewed literature from all parts of the world establishing by a variety of proxy temperature reconstructions that the medieval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. In this and succeeding comments, some 450 papers inconsistent with the IPCC’s current draft are presented. Reason: The IPCC’s conclusion that today’s temperatures are greater than those of the medieval warm period is inconsistent with the preponderance of the published literature on temperature proxies and relies too heavily on modeling.
Examples: Some papers indicating the reality, extent, and magnitude of the medieval warm period in the Northern Hemisphere are given below.
Bond, G. and Lotti, R. 1995. Iceberg discharges into the North Atlantic on millennial time scales during the last glaciation. Science 267: 1005–1010.
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130–2136.
Bond, G., Showers, W., Cheseby, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., deMenocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial climate. Science 278: 1257–1266.
Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B., and Jones, P.D. 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006548.
Bu?rger, G. 2010. Clustering climate reconstructions. Climate of the Past Discussions 6: 659-679.
Butikofer, J. 2007. Millennial Scale Climate Variability During the Last 6000 Years—Tracking Down the Bond Cycles. Diploma thesis, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist, F.C. 2012. The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past 8: 765-786.
D’Arrigo, R., Wilson, R. and Jacoby, G., 2006: On the long-term context for late 20th century warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: D3, D03103.
Denton, G.H. and Karlen, W. 1973. Holocene climatic variations—their pattern and possible cause. Quaternary Research 3: 155–205.
Hong, Y.T., Hong, B., Lin, Q.H., Shibata, Y., Zhu, Y.X., Leng, X.T., and Wang, Y. 2009a. Synchronous climate anomalies in the western North Pacific and North Atlantic regions during the last 14,000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 840–849.
Hong, B., Liu, C., Lin, Q., Yasuyuki, S., Leng, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., and Hong, Y. 2009b. Temperature evolution from the ?18O record of Hami peat, Northeast China, in the last 14,000 years. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 52: 952–964.
Isono, D., Yamamoto, M., Irino, T., Oba, T., Murayama, M., Nakamura, T., and Kawahata, H. 2009. The 1500- year climate oscillation in the mid-latitude North Pacific during the Holocene. Geology 37: 591–594. Loehle, C. 2009. A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94: 233–245. Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler 92A: 339–351.
Ljungqvist, F.C., Krusic, P.J., Brattstrom, G. and Sundqvist, H.S. 2012. Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8: 227-249.
Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C., Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D., Mann, M.E., Woodruff, J.D., Donnelly, J.P. and Zhang, Z. 2009. Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years. Nature 460: 880-883.
Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G. Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R., and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243–255. McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. 2003. Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy and Environment 14: 751–771.
Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M., and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613–617. Oppo, D. 1997. Millennial climate oscillations. Science 278: 1244–1246. Rayner, N.A., Brohan, P., Parker, D.E., Folland, C.K., Kennedy, J.J., Vanicek, M., Ansell, T., and Tett, S.F.B. 2006. Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. Journal of Climate 19: 446–469.
Richter, T.O., Peeters, F.J.C. and van Weering, T.C.E. 2009. Late Holocene (0-2.4 ka BP) surface water temperature and salinity variability, Feni Drift, NE Atlantic Ocean. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1941- 1955.
Trouet, V., Esper, J., Graham, N.E., Baker, A., Scourse, J.D. and Frank, D.C. 2009. Persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation mode dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 324: 78-80.
Wanner, H. and Butikofer, J. 2008. Holocene Bond cycles: real or imaginary? Geografie-Sbornik CGS 113: 338–350.
Wanner, H., Beer, J., Butikofer, J., Crowley, T., Cubasch, U., Fluckiger, J., Goosse, H., Grosjean, M., Joos, F., Kaplan, J.O., Kuttel, M., Muller, S., Pentice, C., Solomina, O., Stocker, T., Tarasov, P., Wagner, M., and Widmann, M. 2008. Mid to late Holocene climate change—an overview. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 1791–1828. Some papers indicating the reality, extent, and magnitude of the medieval warm period in the Arctic are given below.
Benner, R., Benitez-Nelson, B., Kaiser, K. and Amon, R.M.W. 2004. Export of young terrigenous dissolved organic carbon from rivers to the Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL019251. Besonen, M.R., Patridge, W., Bradley, R.S., Francus, P., Stoner, J.S. and Abbott, M.B. 2008. A record of climate over the last millennium based on varved lake sediments from the Canadian High Arctic. The Holocene 18: 169-180.
Bonnet, S., de Vernal, A., Hillaire-Marcel, C., Radi, T. and Husum, K. 2010. Variability of sea-surface temperature and sea-ice cover in the Fram Strait over the last two millennia. Marine Micropaleontology 74: 59- 74
Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A. 2001. Seasonal and interannual variability of the Odden ice tongue and a study of environmental effects. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 9093-9116. Deser, C., Walsh, J.E. and Timlin, M.S. 2000. Arctic sea ice variability in the context of recent atmospheric circulation trends. Journal of Climatology 13: 617-633.
Divine, D., Isaksson, E., Martma, T., Meijer, H.A.J., Moore, J., Pohjola, V., van de Wal, R.S.W. and Godtliebsen, F. 2011. Thousand years of winter surface air temperature variations in Svalbard and northern Norway reconstructed from ice-core data. Polar Research 30: 10.3402/polar.v30i0.7379
Drinkwater, K.F. 2006. The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic. Progress in Oceanography 68: 134-151.
Gonzalez-Rouco, F., von Storch, H. and Zorita, E. 2003. Deep soil temperature as proxy for surface air- temperature in a coupled model simulation of the last thousand years. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL018264.
Goulden, M.L., Wofsy, S.C., Harden, J.W., Trumbore, S.E., Crill, P.M., Gower, S.T., Fries, T., Daube, B.C., Fan, S., Sutton, D.J., Bazzaz, A. and Munger, J.W. 1998. Sensitivity of boreal forest carbon balance to soil thaw. Science 279: 214-217.
Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., Pohjola, V., Martma, T. and Isaksson, E. 2006. Svalbard summer melting, continentality, and sea ice extent from the Lomonosovfonna ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006494.
Groisman, P.Ya., Knight, R.W., Razuvaev, V.N., Bulygina, O.N. and Karl, T.R. 2006. State of the ground: Climatology and changes during the past 69 years over northern Eurasia for a rarely used measure of snow cover and frozen land. Journal of Climate 19: 4933-4955.
Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Karle?n, W., Bartholin, T.S., Jones, P.D. and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to millennial timescales. The Holocene 12: 657-665.
Humlum, O., Elberling, B., Hormes, A., Fjordheim, K., Hansen, O.H. and Heinemeier, J. 2005. Late-Holocene glacier growth in Svalbard, documented by subglacial relict vegetation and living soil microbes. The Holocene 15: 396-407.
Isaksson, E., Hermanson, M., Hicks, S., Igarashi, M., Kamiyama, K., Moore, J., Motoyama, H., Muir, D., Pohjola, V., Vaikmae, R., van de Wal, R.S.W. and Watanabe, O. 2003. Ice cores from Svalbard—useful archives of past climate and pollution history. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28: 1217-1228.
Jomelli, V. and Pech, P. 2004. Effects of the Little Ice Age on avalanche boulder tongues in the French Alps (Massif des Ecrins). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29: 553-564.
Karle?n, W. 2005. Recent global warming: An artifact of a too-short temperature record? Ambio 34: 263-264. Kasper, J.N. and Allard, M. 2001. Late-Holocene climatic changes as detected by the growth and decay of ice wedges on the southern shore of Hudson Strait, northern Que?bec, Canada. The Holocene 11: 563-577. Laidre, K.L. and Heide-Jorgensen, M.P. 2005. Arctic sea ice trends and narwhal vulnerability. Biological Conservation 121: 509-517.
Lovelius, N.V. 1997. Dendroindication of Natural Processes. World and Family 95. St. Petersburg, Russia. Moore, G.W.K., Holdsworth, G. and Alverson, K. 2002. Climate change in the North Pacific region over the past three centuries. Nature 420: 401-403.
Naurzbaev, M.M. and Vaganov, E.A. 2000. Variation of early summer and annual temperature in east Taymir and Putoran (Siberia) over the last two millennia inferred from tree rings. Journal of Geophysical Research 105: 7317-7326.
Naurzbaev, M.M., Vaganov, E.A., Sidorova, O.V. and Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Summer temperatures in eastern Taimyr inferred from a 2427-year late-Holocene tree-ring chronology and earlier floating series. The Holocene 12: 727-736.
Parkinson, C.L. 2000a. Variability of Arctic sea ice: the view from space, and 18-year record. Arctic 53: 341- 358.
Parkinson, C.L. 2000b. Recent trend reversals in Arctic Sea ice extents: possible connections to the North Atlantic oscillation. Polar Geography 24: 1-12.
Parkinson, C.L. and Cavalieri, D.J. 2002. A 21-year record of Arctic sea-ice extents and their regional, seasonal and monthly variability and trends. Annals of Glaciology 34: 441-446.
Parkinson, C., Cavalieri, D., Gloersen, D., Zwally, J. and Comiso, J. 1999. Arctic sea ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978-1996. Journal of Geophysical Research 104: 20,837-20,856.
Peterson, B.J., Holmes, R.M., McClelland, J.W., Vorosmarty, C.J., Lammers, R.B., Shiklomanov, A.I., Shiklomanov, I.A. and Rahmstorf, S. 2002. Increasing river discharge in the Arctic Ocean. Science 298: 2171- 2173.
Polyakov, I., Akasofu, S.-I., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Ikeda, M., Makshtas, A., Swingley, C., Walsh, D. and Walsh, J. 2002a. Trends and variations in Arctic climate system. EOS: Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83: 547-548.
Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Makshtas, A.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin A.V. 2002b. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL011111.
Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Timokhov, L.A., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R.L., Simmons, H.L., Walsh, D., Walsh, J.E. and Zakharov, V.F. 2004. Variability of the intermediate Atlantic water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years. Journal of Climate 17: 4485-4497.
Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D. 2003. Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate 16: 2067-2077.
Przybylak, R. 1997. Spatial and temporal changes in extreme air temperatures in the Arctic over the period 1951-1990. International Journal of Climatology 17: 615-634.
Przybylak, R. 2000. Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic. International Journal of Climatology 20: 587-614.
Przybylak, R. 2002. Changes in seasonal and annual high-frequency air temperature variability in the Arctic from 1951-1990. International Journal of Climatology 22: 1017-1032.
Raspopov, O.M., Dergachev, V.A. and Kolstrom, T. 2004. Periodicity of climate conditions and solar variability derived from dendrochronological and other palaeoclimatic data in high latitudes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 127-139.
Schell, D.M. 1983. Carbon-13 and carbon-14 abundances in Alaskan aquatic organisms: Delayed production from peat in Arctic food webs. Science 219: 1068-1071.
Schirrmeister, L., Siegert, C., Kuznetsova, T., Kuzmina, S., Andreev, A., Kienast, F., Meyer, H. and Bobrov, A. 2002. Paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic records from permafrost deposits in the Arctic region of northern Siberia. Quaternary International 89: 97-118.
Soon, W. W.-H. 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic- wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters 32 L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.
Stern, H.L. and Heide-Jorgensen, M.P. 2003. Trends and variability of sea ice in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, 1953-2001. Polar Research 22: 11-18.
Vaganov, E.A., Shiyatov, S.G. and Mazepa, V.S. 1996. Dendroclimatic Study in Ural-Siberian Subarctic. Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia.
Yoo, J.C. and D’Odorico, P. 2002. Trends and fluctuations in the dates of ice break-up of lakes and rivers in Northern Europe: the effect of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Journal of Hydrology 268: 100-112.
Zeeberg, J. and Forman, S.L. 2001. Changes in glacier extent on north Novaya Zemlya in the twentieth century. Holocene 11: 161-175. [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom]”

ENJOY

@Daryl

What causes global cooling?

Provide the science behind the premise that CO2 has some magical ability to change the reactions on the physical climate of the planet without inverse effect.

By what physical properties can a gas such as CO2, in excess, cause global warming, but has no inverse effect to cause global cooling when levels have been lower? In order for a gas like CO2 at high levels to be the cause of global warming then inverse lower levels would imply global cooling, that has not happened. CO2 has neither a mind of its own nor a magical switch to decide what role it will play from one geological period to the next.

The historic temperatures records since 1850, prove that no weighted effect exists for the behavior of CO2 within the atmosphere to create either. The AGW theory cannot explain why or how there have been periods of very warm temperatures or periods of lower temperatures during cyclical periods, even offer the last century, that don't correlate with either lower or higher levels of CO2.

Examples:

1945 to 1977 cool period with soaring CO2 emissions. Global temperatures began to cool in the mid–1940’s at the point when CO2 emissions began to soar. Global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped about 0.5° C (0.9° F) from the mid-1940s until 1977 and temperatures globally cooled about 0.2° C (0.4° F).

Many of the world’s glaciers advanced during this time and recovered a good deal of the ice lost during the 1915–1945 warm period. However, cooling during this period was not as deep as in the preceding cool period (1880 to 1915). Many examples of glacial recession during the past century cited in the news media show contrasting terminal positions beginning with the maximum extent at the end of a ~30 year cool period (1915 or 1977) and ending with the minimum extent of the recent 20 year warm period (1998). A much better gauge of the effect of climate on glaciers would be to compare glacier terminal positions between the ends of successive cool periods or the ends of successive warm periods.

CO2 emissions from 1945 to 1977 soared, yet global temperature dropped during that 30–year period. If CO2 causes global warming as claimed, temperature should have risen, rather than declined, strongly suggesting that rising CO2.did not cause significant global warming.

Why would global temperatures drop as CO2 Levels increased dramatically during that 30 period? Did the chemistry of CO2 suddenly change? Did, in fact, the physical properties of CO2 just suddenly change, by what scientifically possible method does CO2 selectively create warning? Does CO2 have a history in the geological record that is consistent with the current premise that temperatures, on a global scale, are controlled or drastically influenced by the increase or decrease of CO2?

How was one of the warmest period in the 20th century, between 1915 to 1945 warm period be caused by atmospheric CO2 when the levels were not greatly increased over pre-industrial levels?

Global temperatures rose steadily in the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s. By the mid 1940s, global temperatures were about 0.5 °C (0.9° F) warmer than they had been at the turn of the century. More high temperature records for the century were recorded in the 1930s than in any other decade of the 20th or the 21th century. What caused that warming? The number of record high temperatures over 90 degrees during the 1930s into the 1940s were 36% more than anything the Earth has experienced since that period.

During the 1977–1998, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, the only period in the past four centuries when warming and atmospheric CO2 have risen together. However, this doesn’t prove a cause–and–effect relationship—just because two things happen together doesn’t prove that one is the cause of the other.
Correlation does not infer causation and geological history doesn't support such an effect.

No global warming has occurred above the 1998 level. In 1998, the PDO was in its warm mode. In 1999, the PDO flipped from its warm mode into its cool mode and satellite imagery confirms that the cool mode has become firmly entrenched since then and global cooling has deepened significantly in the past few years.

IN 2013, the UN IPCC released a report of the largest year over year rise in CO2 since 1984, then in 2014 the record for emissions broke that record, is even higher now, and yet even the IPCC admits there has been no warning since 1998. Warming has been on a flat trend until, according to NASA, the temperature has started to trend downward since 2016.

In your own words, tell me just how are these things consistent with the AGW when even AGW scientists are struggling with these issues that appear to be flies in the AGW ointment?

@Daryl

Absolutely here ya go, although unless you are a member of the AAAS or some other professional association, some of these links might not be assessable without those memberships or will require a free to download the Study. I'm sure you're a member of such associations.

There is an old adage in science, it's always good to remember:
“If we torture the data long enough, it will confess”

A very strange turn-about on the ability of climate models are not capable of predicting long-term climate. In the IPCC Specifically in Section 14.2.2.2 (Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles) of the AR3 report the bottom line concerning the unresolvable shortcomings of global climate model simulations was articulated and clearly presented as:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles of modal solutions.”

Despite the latest global climate model updates reflected in the UN IPCC AR5 report the limitations clearly articulated in the UN IPCC AR3 report that “the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” applies to the AR5 report assessments and findings.

This significant limitation in AR5 global climate model outputs is highlighted in UN IPCC AR5 Technical Summary in Box TS.6 where the climate model scenarios are specifically qualified as follows:

“The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)” In other words, they don't know shit from shiolah.

Now in 1999, NASA wrote the following report, notice what it said and notice the graphs in particular, because later NASA adjusted the higher temperatures in the 1930s and 40s downward, proof of that fact can be found in later graphs, as I said before all you need do is print a transparency of 2018 graphs over lay them with the 1999. The verified temperatures can not change so drastically and there is absolutely no scientific justification and in fact NASA has given none. You can also compare the EPA graph of 1999 to current graphs.

[giss.nasa.gov]

Now, do a little research, in regard to the global graph showing warming up to the 1999 published date...find out how many or more appropriately, how few monitoring stations were established around the world to get those temperatures used in that graph, you see the United States has the most comprehensive monitoring, or at least did until a recent government audit concluded that nearly 80% of them don't meet government standards set for such stations. That is one reason why NASA found it impossible to reconcile the two.

When the global warming hiatus began, what were they forced to do, change the name from global warming to climate change, which is conveniently all-inclusive and therefore, it is not falsifiable, but there is no deniability of climate change, it is and has been in constant flux, the question is the degree of anthropogenic forcing in relationship to the known and verified natural variations throughout the geological record.

Looking backward, climate change the phenomenon has been a constant feature of our planet. Real climate science tells us that temperatures have been much colder and much hotter in the past. For the past twelve thousand years, we’ve been living in an interglacial period. These pleasant periods have tended to last for ten to fifteen thousand years, so real climate science predicts that we can enjoy perhaps about five thousand more years of temperate weather until the next ice age hits.

The theory of “global warming”, on the other hand, is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works, like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein's theory of Relativity, are still assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw those theories into complete disarray. The entire concept, as you have aptly presented about global warming, that a theory represents, to any degree, a settled science disregards both the long history of scientific theory as well as, science itself. It is anathema to the intellectual and scientific mind. Therefore, strictly speaking, the global warming theory doesn't even taken into account that there are other relevant factors that have been shown, both in the geological record and the records for the last 150 years, to have a far stronger effect upon the climate than CO2 on the climate, like the Sun, Ocean currents and oscillations, and even the most powerful “greenhouse” gas, water vapor.

Greenhouse-warming theory assumes that mean global surface temperatures rise when greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb infrared radiation from Earth. This rise in temperature is thought to be a few degrees Celsius when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled. But think about that, no body of matter, in the known physical world,can be warmed, in any way that known of, be warmed by its own radiation. This is not physically possible. Let's take two bodies of matter of the same temperature, can one body make the other body physical hotter when they are both at the same temperature? Now both bodies can lose heat but not absorb heat from each other as long as the temperatures of each body remains the same. A cold body, such as CO2, according to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, cannot heat a warmer body. If a body has no heat source in and of itself, a body cannot heat another body.

The past is the key to the future--To understand present-day climate changes, we need to know how climate has behaved in the past. In order to predict where we are heading, we need to know where we've been. Thus, one of the best ways to predict what climate changes lay ahead is to look for patterns of past climate changes.

Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age and in the 10,000 years that followed, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they happened before CO2 began to rise sharply around 1945. This paper documents the geologic evidence for these sudden climate fluctuations, which show s remarkably consistent pattern over decades, centuries, and millennia.

Among the surprises that emerged from oxygen isotope analyses of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores was the recognition of very sudden, short–lived climate changes. The ice core records show that such abrupt climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Climate shifts, up to half the difference between Ice Age and interglacial conditions, occurred in only a few decades.

Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years. The intensity and suddenness of these climatic fluctuations is astonishing. Several times, temperatures rose and fell from 9–15° F in a century or less.

The dramatic melting of continental glaciers in North America, Europe, and Asia that began 15,000 years ago was interrupted by sudden cooling 12,800 years ago, dropping the world back into the Ice Age. Continental and alpine glaciers all over the world ceased their retreat and re-advanced. This cold period, the Younger Dryas, lasted for 1300 years and ended abruptly with sudden, intense warming 11,500 years ago. The climate in Greenland warmed about 9° F in about 30 years and 15° F over 40 years. During the Younger Dryas cold period, glaciers not only expanded significantly, but also fluctuated repeatedly, in some places as many as nine times.

Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods.

Both Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have long been well established and documented with strong geologic evidence. Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn't take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used. As shown in the 1,900 published papers, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age most certainly happened and the Mann et al. 'hockey stick' is nonsense, not supported by any credible evidence.

The oxygen isotope record for the Greenland GISP ice core over the past 500 years shows a remarkably regular alternation of warm and cool periods. The vertical blue lines at the bottom of the graph below show the time intervals between each warm/cool period. The average time interval is 27 years, the same as for time intervals between Pacific Ocean warm and cool temperatures as shown by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (see below)

Global warming is real, but it did not begin in 1945 at the time of greatly increased CO2 emissions. Two periods of global warming (1915–1945 and 1977–1998), and two periods of global cooling (1880–1915 and 1945–1977) occurred in the 20th century. Atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply right after WWII in 1945 but was accompanied by global cooling for 30 years, rather than by warming, and the earlier warm period from 1915 to 1945 took place before CO2 began to rise significantly.

During each of the two warm periods of the past century, alpine glaciers retreated and during each of the two cool periods glaciers advanced. The timing of the glacier advances and retreats coincides almost exactly with global temperature changes and with Pacific Ocean surface temperatures (PDO).

The Pacific Ocean has two modes, a warm mode and cool mode, and regularly switches back and forth between modes in a 25-30 year repeating cycle known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). When the PDO is in its warm mode, the climate warms and when it is in its cool mode the climate cools. Glacier fluctuations are driven by climatic changes, which are driven by ocean surface temperatures (PDO).

During the cool PDO mode, ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are cool. This was typical of the global cooling from 1945 to 1977. During the warm PDO, ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are warm. This was typical of the global warming from 1977 to 1998. The abrupt shift of the Pacific from the cool mode to the warm mode in a single year (1977) and the beginning of the last warm cycle has been termed the "Great Pacific Climate shift." There is a direct correlation between PDO mode and global temperature

The ocean surface temperature in the eastern Pacific off the coast of North America was warm in 1997. In 1999, the PDO switched from its warm mode to its cool mode and has since remained cool as shown by satellite imagery. Adding the PDO record for the past decade to the PDO for the century provides an interesting pattern. The PDO 1915–1945 warm mode, the 1945-1977 cool mode, the 1977-1998 warn mode, and the switch from warm to cool mode in 1999 all match corresponding global climate changes and strongly suggest:

1. The PDO has a regular cyclic pattern with alternating warm and cool modes every 25-30 years

2. The PDO has accurately matched each global climate change over the past century and may be used as a predictive tool.

3. Since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999, global temperatures have not exceeded the 1998 high.

4. Each time the PDO has changed from one mode to another, it has stayed in that mode for 25-30 years; thus, since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999 has been entrenched, it will undoubtedly stay in its cool mode for another several decades.

5. With the PDO in cool mode for another several decades, we can expect another several decades of cooling.

In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted global warming of1° F per decade and global warming of about 10° F by 2100. The red line on the graph below is their predicted temperature curve for 2000 to 2050. Note that by 2010, temperatures should be 1° F warmer than in 2000. That didn't happen so their climate models failed to predict even 10 years ahead.

The blue curves of projected cooling are based on the past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

The possibility of temperatures dropping to the level of the Dalton Minimum is suggested by the recent passing of the sun from a solar grand maximum to a solar grand minimum similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. The unusually long sun spot cycle 23 and the solar magnetic index suggest that a solar minimum similar to the Dalton is very possible. A fourth possibility is that we may be approaching another Maunder type minimum and another Little Ice Age. Time will tell which curve is correct.

[hindawi.com]

[researchgate.net]

[file.scirp.org]

[file.scirp.org]

[rossmckitrick.com]

[nature.com]

[nature.com]

[link.springer.com]

[pnas.org]

[link.springer.com]

[science.sciencemag.org]

[link.springer.com]

[science.sciencemag.org]

[tandfonline.com]

[onepetro.org]

[books.google.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[aanda.org]

[jpl.nasa.gov]

[nature.com]

[actuaries.asn.au]

[link.springer.com]

[doi.org]

[cambridge.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[science.sciencemag.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[link.springer.com]

[rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[nature.com]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[science.sciencemag.org]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[sciencetalks.nl]

[researchgate.net]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[mdpi.com]

[article.sciencepublishinggroup.com]

[file.scirp.org]

[arxiv.org]

[cnki.com.cn]

[article.esjournal.org]

[readcube.com]

[researchgate.net]

[doi.org]

@Daryl

According to [sciencemag.org], [omicsonline.org] was just fined $50 Million Dollars yesterday for fake science.

FAKE PEER REVIEW: “OMICS, which publishes about 700 journals in scientific and other fields, advertised deceptively that it provided authors with rigorous peer review overseen by editorial boards. Instead, its journals approved many articles for publication in a matter of days with no substantive feedback to authors, FTC alleged. The judge relied in part on the findings of an investigation published by Science in 2013; its author, journalist John Bohannon, submitted a deposition to the court. Of 69,000 manuscripts published by OMICS from 2011 to 2017, the publisher provided evidence that only half had been sent out for peer review.”

PAY TO PUBLISH: “Despite this lack of actual peer review, OMICS’s solicitations to authors didn’t make it clear enough that it would charge them to publish articles in its open-access journals. Some authors complained and asked OMICS to withdraw their articles, but OMICS refused, preventing authors from submitting them to other publications.”

FAKE LIST OF REVIEWERS: “OMICS advertised its 50,000 reviewers as experts, but some never agreed to serve, and OMICS continued to publicly list some scientists as reviewers even after they asked to be removed.”

FALSIFIED IT OWN IMPACT: “The publisher advertised that its journals had high impact factors, a measure of their editorial quality. But it didn’t sufficiently reveal that OMICS itself generated its own “unofficial impact factor” for some of its journals based on citations in Google Scholar. OMICS also incorrectly stated that its journals are indexed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Medline and PubMedCentral.”
HELD FAKED CONFERENCES: “OMICS organized scholarly conferences and advertised that prominent academics would attend. But a sampling of 100 conferences indicated that 60% named organizers or participants who had not agreed to serve in that capacity.”

@Daryl

You really just believe that science is static! Start reading the latest research. Another problem you seem to have is that you fail to distinguish the fact that most of the scientists studies that I have presented don't start their research to prove anthropogenic global warming exists or doesn't exist, they follow where the research leads to conclusions, what every that conclusion might be based in the observational and theoretical evidence. You are tied into this compartmentalized mind-set that forbids any other consideration of factual information that contradicts your conditioned opinion. You can't grasp the fact that all scientific theory is vurnerable to new information and discovery.

If it is real then these three things would not happen:

-The temperature trend shows a decreasing warming from the lowertroposphere up to the tropopause level and then reverses to coolingin the lower stratosphere. This trend at the tropopause can be con-sidered almost zero. The latter can not support the increase in the height of tropopause, a necessary fingerprint of global warming.

-At the lower stratosphere there is a negative temperature trendwhich is lower over both poles (compared to tropics and extra-tropics) with the lowest value over the North Pole.

-In the lower and mid-troposphere the temperature trend decreaseswith height and latitude.The above-mentioned three results do not agree with the global warming theory, namely, the gradual increase of tropospheric warmingwith latitude

@Daryl

"AGW skepticism is not mostly about science. It is mostly about political ideology, self-identity, tribal loyalty and etc."

Of course, it appears absolutely necessary for you to base your mistaken belief that the skepticism is based on things other than science however, the evidence contradicting your statement is absolutely overwhelming. You apparently base your stance on the obvious fact that you simply don't know, evidentially ignorant of the fact that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies to the contrary. I dare say, given your comments, that you can count the number of actual peer-reviewed studies, on either side of the issue, on one hand. Tell me just how man have you read?

Here is a list of recently published, peer-reviewed studies, in highly esteemed Scientific Journals and Periodicals, there are literally thousands more I could cite if there was room and time to do so...needless to say, it shows the folly of your statement.

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[researchgate.net]

[nature.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[orca.cf.ac.uk]

[the-cryosphere.net]

[nature.com]

[link.springer.com]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[frontiersin.org]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[tandfonline.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[paleoecologie.umontreal.ca]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[orca.cf.ac.uk]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[tandfonline.com]

[nature.com]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[climate.appstate.edu]

[clim-past.net]

[journals.ametsoc.org]

[newzealandecology.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[link.springer.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[journals.ametsoc.org]

@Daryl

Those were not simply articles, the papers I cited are peer-reviewed Scientific research papers, published in some of the most reputable scientific journals in the world.

Please play close attention to my post script.

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

Human contribution to the atmospheric mass of CO2 Is approximately 1/3 of 1%...

Well give it your best shot. Science has never, ever been proven by consensus, The two fact, as shown in my comments above, is that there is no consensus and there never had been, consensus is like 98% of all dentist agree you should brush your teeth with toothpaste. By the way, the entire 98% concensus was anonymous, not a single name of a single scientist was provided, except Tol, who said the claim was incorrect, he didn't say he agreed to man-made global warming in the survey Cook conducted.

Scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views. Every single actual discovery has never, in the history of science, ever been determined correct via a consensus. The only consensus that is being played out in the science of global warming is in the media, certainly not among scientists. In the last three years there have been more papers published that refute the theory than support it... Why would that be happening? Because that sir is the nature of science, more data arises that points in different directions.

It is interesting isn't it that after years of fighting the release of documents, emails, data upon which their AGW case rest, that a federal judge ordered the release of those documents and low and behold, what do you know, like like the 6000 emails previously leaked, these new documents show exactly how manipulated the data was to arrive at global warming. Some of the most important scientists with the AGW movement have been outted as data-manipulators, frauds. The ham that is the father of the AGW movement, Michael Mann lost his Court case and has been deemed a fraud. Those are the type of people you base your belief on, you need to read more.

Please by all means cite the papers. Have you actually read a single one...I have? Your premise was that the skeptical position was mainly political or tribal... My comment proved that it is extremely scientific, all peer-reviewed, published in notable, highly reputable scientific journals.

You have yet to even muster a rebuttal that contradicts any of my comments except to revert back in the corner with your 98% which was based on the agreement of a whopping 75 out of 77 science papers, and even some of those scientist refuted John Cook saying that he was mistaken, their work didn't agree with man-made global warming.

Cite your papers proving it, but read those papers very very carefully, they tend to be rather complicated.

P.S.
As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that, "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate change movement has been transformed in the last year.

In May 2010, Lovelock shocked the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet," Lovelock explained.

Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way."

Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain
about the science, Noting that there has been a drop in the average global temperature in the past two decades.

Mike Hulme took apart a key claim of global warming at one timeHulme noted that claims such as "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people and make claim of consensus. "That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."

In another blow to the UN IPCC's carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: 'There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies' & Science magazine confused about who is a 'prominent climate scientist' -- 'there is no specific climate discipline' & Claims of 'overwhelming majority' of scientists exposed as laughable! 'There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which...the [UN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm rests'

A canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

Scientific meetings are being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of the UN IPCC' UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate.

MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique –[arxiv.org]

Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth’s magnetic field, rejected man-made global warming claims: “Climate change is a physical process. Climate is in fact like the Earth’s energy budget. The Earth receives most energy from the Sun and some energy from its depths – as we see in earthquakes and other reactions taking place deep inside the Earth. That energy warms the oceans that store the warmth on the Earth’s surface. This is a kind of energy budget consisting of elements that come and go.” Levitin continued: “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate. However, the energy budget is very under-studied because there is only a small range of observations used to measure it. This is a very complicated process. Today we cannot measure it with 99% accuracy. Our current measurements are only 10%-15% accurate. The change must be at least 1% to change the climate. The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. Some processes take seconds and other years. You cannot check man’s state of health in a matter of seconds; the process could take a fortnight and even then the result will not be definitive. The same goes for climate change. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

Daryl, you're being dupped and you don't even seem to be aware of it...

@Daryl

Being dupped is when you hold an almost religious adherence to a position without researching both sides of that position. I have researched both sides and in fact, I was for a short while one who gave some credence to the AGW position until I read the work of more and more scientists who's research completely demolished the entire theory. You, on the other hand have proven that you ignore the scientific research, even the research of those that have been involved in the entire process only to find new scientific evidence strong enough to completely change their minds. Scientists that have been involved with the IPCC, who have been involved with IPCC assessments and have abandoned those positions because they have either discovered their positions were incorrect or they have read research that has changed their direction. That is exactly what science consist of, the ability to correct your position when new discoveries are made or when you find that your theory does not fit into the reality of newly discovered parameters. Science by consensus is always static and resistant to any new discovery, resistant to correction, dogmatic in position, unyielding. Dogmatic science claims itself settled science.

You can obviously not say you have read actual published research on either side of the issue. If you have then give me the name of the actual study you have read and provide your explanation of that study.

Here is a letter from the most prominent German Scientis to Chancellor Merkle:

Open Letter – Climate Change
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin
#
Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed
the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. [The Global Warming Hiatus is approaching the 20 year mark.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,
Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE Diplom-Geologe
Universita?t. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Ho?xter (ret.) #
Dr. Holger Thuß

Come back in 5 years, then tell me you have not been dupped. By 2024 the Solar Physicist and Quantum Mathematician eltimates from solar cycles that we will enter a Grand Solar Minimum.

By the way, look at the NASA Charts below, compare the distribution of Water Vapor in the Atmosphere with the movement of Temperatures, it's almost an exact correlation between the two, then compare CO2 global distribution in terms of IR radiation, there is no correlation between it and temperature distribution. Water Vapor is one of the most abundan and most potent gas with any effect on climate, go ahead compare those charts with NASAs CO2 Charts.

@Daryl

The Scientists who wrote this open letter to President Obama, do you think they too are dupped? They certainly are highly esteemed scientists in the field.

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." Barack Obama

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect."

? Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
? Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
? Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
? J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
? Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
? Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
? Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
? David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
? John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
? Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
? Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
? Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
? John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
? Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
? Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
? Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Canada
? Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
? Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
? Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
? Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
Change
? Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
? Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
? Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
? James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
? David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
? Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
? David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
? Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy
Conversion, The Ohio State University
? Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
? John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
? Upon Tyne, (retired)
? Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
? Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
? Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
? Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
? Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
? Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
? Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
? Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
? James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
? Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
? Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
? William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
? Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
? Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
? Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
? Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
? Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
? Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
? Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
? Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
? Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
? A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
? Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global
Change
? Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
? Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
? Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
? Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
? Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
? Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
? David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And
Industrial Research
? Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
? Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And
Technology Forum, South Africa
? Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
? Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
? James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
? Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
? Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
? Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
? Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
? James F. Lea, Ph.D.
? Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
? Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
? David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
? Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
? Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources
Working Group
? Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
? Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
? Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
? Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
? Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
? James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
? Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
? Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
? Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
? Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological
Institute, Norway
? Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
? Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
? Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
? David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
? Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
? Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
? Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
? Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
? Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
? Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
? John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
? Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
? Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
? Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
? Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
? Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
? Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
? Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
? Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of
Reclamation
? George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
? Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
? Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
? Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
? Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
? Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
? Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate
Change
? Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
? Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
? Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
Change
? Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists

@Daryl

I bet you never read, perhaps you never heard of the US Senate Report, pretty sure you haven't.

[epw.senate.gov]

@Daryl

Here's a man that should know his stuff:

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co- coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage,

“I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate. The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,”

You think he is dupped too??

@Daryl

Dupped, ya think?

Another highly recognized Scientists laying it out:

Dr. Paul Berenson, an M.I.T-educated physicist, was the executive secretary of the Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Scientific Advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Berenson, who describes himself as a “scientific truth seeker," has published about a dozen peer-reviewed studies in the field of thermodynamics, power, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. Stated in no uncertain terms:

“Earth is in the final stages of a typical 10,000 year plus interglacial when both atmospheric temperature and CO2 content tend to increase long term from natural causes, as they have after every ice age. The next major stage is the start of a new ice age which hopefully is more than a thousand years in the future, man has been putting increasingly large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Age and rapidly increasing the last 60 years as shown in all the references. However, the amount of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere is less than 1 % of the CO2 that is there from natural causes. Current atmospheric temperatures and CO2 content are no higher than they have been at various times during the past million years. The so-called Climate Optimum 1000 to 1300 A.D. was 1-3 degrees C warmer than now, and apparently provided better living conditions for humans, animals, and vegetation. For example, Greenland was green and habitable by farmers. Water vapor (H2O) is the primary greenhouse gas, contributing roughly 80 % of the greenhouse effect. Without the warming effect of the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be roughly 10 degrees cooler, and probably uninhabitable by humans. It has been estimated that the warming effect of CO2 is roughly one thousandth that of water vapor. The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc,”

@Daryl

Maybe this woman has been dupped and is not aware of it, what ya think?

Joanne Sipmson is considered the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, formerly of NASA, has authored more than 190 studies. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. 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. We only need to watch the weather forecasts, as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

@Daryl

Talk about credentials, but maybe he too is just dupped and doesn't know it, you think?

Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray is the former head of the Space Services branch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories. Gray also served as an aviation meteorologist for the United States Air Force. Gray asserted that “” and dissented from the view that mankind faces a “climate crisis” in 2007. “Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time, I am sure that the concept of a ‘Global Temperature’ is nonsense. The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data, climate change is a natural occurrence,”

@Daryl

Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals. Stilbs stated:

“There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998. There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited. There is no doubt that the science behind ‘the climate issue’ is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there is no credibility for arguments such as ‘there is no other explanation’ [than anthropogenic generation of carbon dioxide].” This must be remembered when making future political decisions related to these matters. These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.”

@Daryl

Notice the actual Raw Data in Green and the trend line, then notice the ACORN-V1 and ACORN-V2 which have had the recent past temperatures drastically lowered. What is the effect? With such adjustments it makes temperatures and thus the trend appear to be rising. It's easy to get the raw data-sets, but those raw recorded temperatures ARE NOT PUBLISHED.

Recorded and documented temperatures (green) show a mild cooling trend of 0.28 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This cooling trend has been changed to warming of 1.7 degrees Celsius per 100 years in ACORN-SAT Version 1 (orange). These temperatures have been further remodeled in ACORN-SAT Version 1 (red) to give even more dramatic warming, which is now 1.9 degrees Celsius, neither of which are factual, but merely adjustments. Such adjustments appear to be a commonality among several climate agencies around the world. Are there reasons for skepticism, only an irrational person would ignore such adjustments when looking at the documented recorded raw data-sets.

“I don't know if they are duped or not, but they are just wrong and in the minority. The evidence showing AGW is real is rock solid.”

Again, you provide yet another feckless rebuttal. You can't provide documentation for your point; throughout this entire debate you have had a fall-back position that has no valid evidence to support that position. You have yet to provide names within your so-called and imaginary majority opinion, nor have you been able to produce actual scientific research studies to back your position. You must ignore, solely because your belief-system requires such ignorance, the entire paleontological record, especially of the last 12,000 years. The record completely destroys the entire narrative that you have, misguidedly, placed your apparent religious-like, ultra-faith in, which you have demonstrated in every single comment you have made. You have not, nor apparently are you capable, read any of the peer-reviewed research, [if you have read a single one on either side of the issue, which I seriously doubt] and form an opinion based solely upon the science presented, thereby fail to even provide the most remotely applicable rebuttal. Your constant response has been a cacophony of monotonous repetition, devoid of any actual defense for your position, that's nothing unusual, I find that to be the case with so many that parrot what they have been told rather than having the ability to form and, when confronted with opposing facts, incapable of determining the actual source of their own opinion.

Climate cycles are subject to natural variations that have always occurred throughout the history of the planet, it is virtually and scientifically impossible to determine a long-term climate trend within a short period of time, such as the last thirty to forty years. Natural variations are cyclical, climate change is a long term process that takes thousands of years to become evident. The question is how is it possible to determine if the present-day AGW hypothesis is correct or incorrect; first it is obvious that it does not contain all the real energetic constraints and boundary conditions to allow for a favorable determination of is accuracy. Meaning that, this far, it is impossible to determine it as factual because it is based, primarily on a narrow time scale that has focused on events of the last 30 or 40 years without any substantive recognition of the overall trend since the last glaciation around 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The actual warming tend peaked approximately 7,800 years ago and contrary to the entire AGW hypothesis, the climate tend has been toward a return to a rapidly cooling off the Earth. Proof of that fact can be readily seen in the geological record of the last 12,000 years, with the current warming peak at 7,800 yr, dropping further at the 6000 yr point to even further to the Minoan Warming, downward to the Roman Warming and subsequently to the last great period the Medieval Warming.

From the point between 9000 years ago until the warning peak of the interglacial peiord of 7,800 year ago, where the high Arctic Island of Zhokhov was warm and lush enough for Birch Trees to grow and a human habitation, the global temperatures have been dropping precipitously with intermittent warning and cooling periods throughout. The overall trend however, is cooling, so cool, in fact, that the island of Zhokhov, once habitable is now completely inhospitable to human life.

As former NASA atmospheric scientist Ferenc Miskolczi’s research concluded that the Earth maintains a balanced greenhouse effect with controlled surface temperature, which cannot be changed solely by changing the atmospheric longwave absorber concentration via CO2. It can be changed only if the incoming available energy changes. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission cannot generate global warming, neither in the past, nor in the future. The 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from the mid-1800s is mainly due to natural causes; its origin is somewhere in the ocean's heat exchange and/or in the change of solar constant and the planetary albedo. Further 3-6 degree global warming is physically more than unlikely: it is impossible. The new greenhouse equations of Dr. Miskolczi can be read at the official website of the Quarterly Journal of the HMS, Vol. 111. No.1.

“To put it in a language that IPCC will understand: Extra CO2 does not result extra 'radiative forcing' in the final account, as the energy constraint rules it back to its equilibrium value. Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions. So, contrary to the common wisdom, there is no positive H2O-temperature feedback on global scale: in Earth-type atmospheres uncontrolled runaway warming is not possible. This new theory seems to be only a little step forward in the two-hundred year old greenhouse science, but its consequences are revolutionary: actually it stops the possibility of man-made global warming”

Here are a few pictures to show the that the most recent warming period is a natural and cyclical variation:

Pic 1. You have the actual cyclical climate from the end of the last glaciation to the peak warning cycle of the interglacial period that began 12,000 years ago, with the peak warning of 5 to 6 degrees around 7,800 years ago when the Arctic was reduced to the point that islands now uninhabitable were inhabited by human populations, from that point the Earth has been slowly but steadily on a cooling trajectory with this modern warning cycle ending approximately almost 20 years ago, which was confirmed even by AGW scientists who have deemed it a global warming Hiatus. NASA confirms that the last 3 years has been the greatest temperature drop in over a century. NASA has also confirmed that our Sun has seen a drastic slowdown more rapid than anything in the last 9000 years, that's important to understand in viewing the temperature cycles from 9000 years ago, it is the progenitor of what's ahead.

Pic 2. This shows the lagging effect of the recent Warming Cycle, what is mistakenly dubbed Anthropogenic Global Warming that began in the early 80s and effectivity ended in the early 2000s. We see the definite effect on the Arctic icepack. Of course, AGW theorists must ignore a tremendous amount of documented evidence, such as the great Warming Cycle that occurred in the 1920s to the 1940s when, as reported, it was so warm that the Arctic was completely unrecognizable and extremely high temperatures caused a mass Exodus during the American Dust Bowl. This most recent modern Warming has barely come close to the drastic increase of temperatures during that time. In fact, this recent Warming has seen 36% fewer days when temperatures over 95 degrees than the late 1930s and early 1940s. You can verify that fact in the archives of the USHCN.

PIC 3. This shows the most recent coverage of the Arctic and hemispheric ice coverage, it speaks for itself self.

Pic 4. This is a news article explaining just how incredibly warm the Arctic was in 1922, even though CO2 ppm was substantially lower than current levels, we have seen noting in the last 40 years that come remotely close to what was taking place at that time.

Keep your belief system and as I've said before come back in about 5 years and tell me if you still believe the fraud that has been perpetrated on the world purely for an ideological economic agenda the the IPCC has been very open about.

@Daryl

An interesting point of fact is the inability for AGW Alarmists to explain the fact of a 30 year period where CO2 rises almost linearly while global surface temperatures fell considerably between 1940 and 1970, totally contradicting the entire premise supporting the theory that anthropogenic CO2, or even CO2 in general is, by some heretofore unknown and completely unexplained mechanism, the driver of climate change through rising temperatures. Of course, that's just one example of the multitude of scientific inconsistencies that make up the foundation of the hypothesis.

@Daryl

Sir Isaac Newton’s Law of Cooling states that the rate of heat lost by a body is directly proportional to the temperature difference between the body and its surrounding areas.

The solution is simple, just show me the evidence to back up your claims and the claims of the AGW Alarmists. Alarmists are exactly what they are, so far in the last couple of years in particular they have blamed thousands of the most incomprehensible things of Global Warming to the point that the mass hysteria from their claims now have women going on a birth strike for fear of a future that the idiots claim they can foretell which none of their predictions over the last 40 years have come to pass. False prophets of a false religion that ignores the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The fact is that with the rise of CO2, there has been no correlation with a corresponding rise in temperature, as proven by the Raw temperature record by the USHCN. The past three years, according to NASA, we have seen the biggest drop in temperature in the last 100+ years. You will also find that the record cold temperatures have overwhelmed the record heat temperature in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Record hot days, over 95 degrees have dropped 36% since the 1930s, If the AGW hypothesis were correct then we would be seeing just the opposite, again you would have to totally ignore the entire documented and verified historic temperature record to believe what you believe.

As I've said previously, the Earth system is nothing like a greenhouse, more of a heat/cool exchange that precisely regulates its atmosphere, land mass, oceanographic oscillations, along with trillions of other complex interactions that are either undiscovered or not fully understood. Remember modern climate science is extremely young, we are just learning and so far not all that well. Thus is easy to see that all temperature and weather observations give an extremely strong indication that this Earth system doesn't resemble a closed system that is necessary for those advocating Anthropogenic Global Warming to hold their theory so assiduously.

First, there has been no experiment that has proven that the greenhouse effect by some heretofore unknown mechanism can warm the Earth. Of course, we have been told that a trace gas, a cold body CO2, can warm a warm body, the Earth, when the 2 Law of Thermodynamics renders that impossible. As the story goes CO2, traps heat that has been irradiated by the Earth/Ocean and creates a back-radiation thereby warming the Earth and while that seems very plausible, at least so it seems until you delve deeper. Let's take the Oceans, since they make up about 77% of the Earth's surface. It takes an almost incomprehensible amount of energy to heat the ocean. Of course, it's a scientific fact that the short-wave IR radiation from CO2, which radiates in all different directions and it's not focused downward, only penetrates the first 3mm of the Ocean’s surface, which is evaporated through condensation. The only thing that can penetrate sea water to any measurable degree is the blue-green spectrum of visible light from the sun.

So we know that for volume to volume, the base heat capacity has a ratio of about 3300 to 1. So think about what that means, it means that in order to heat just a liter of water by 1C, it would take 3300 liters of air that is at least 2C hotter than the Liter of water or 1 liter of air that was 3300C hotter than the 1 liter of water.

So just how much energy would it take to heat the Earth's oceans just 1 degree Celsius? If the ocean contains 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water and it takes an air temperature to be 3300 degrees Celsius how many joules of energy, because that's the only magnitude that's even conceivable to relate the magnitude, world it take to warm the oceans by a mere degree Celsius? This is one of the primary cases against the entire AGW theory. It would take an almost unimaginable 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy just to warm the Oceans by 1 degree Celsius. Do the calculations and then tell me how long it would take to accomplish the feat based on the theory of AGW?

These are practical questions that appear to be totally absent in consideration when speaking about a theory that hinges upon CO2 being the cause of global warming. The theory defies the laws of physics. In terms of the Earth's ratio of air to water there's only about a kilogram of air to each ton of Seawater.

Infrared thermography puts a huge nail in the IPCC-hypothesis coffin, of course I have yet to read a study about that major problem in AGW papers, they don't want to address the subject.

Thuene wrote. “The Earth’s surface gains heat from the Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a nonstop process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity. Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,”

Show me the rise in temperatures in Raw Data, not the manipulated data that's now a common occurrence and was exposed by the emails of AGW "Scientist's" Now below you will find the raw data as recorded by all monitoring stations by the USHCN (Untied States Historic Climate Network) Tell me where you see higher temperatures? You will also find one graph that contains the increase in the number of lower summer temperatures and a copy of the original EPA graph that was published on their website until just a few years ago before the massive adjustments were made.
Notice the warmest period in recent history 1936. We have seen nothing in the last 83 years that come remotely close and yet CO2 was 100ppm less than today... So show me the correlation?

“Show me the consensus expert opinion that accords with your minority position. Once you do that, reconsideration is in order.”

Consensus is never wrong except when it's wrong. The question of a consensus is exactly the same as political polls, the results depends on the numbers of the participants, the wording of the questions involved and how you choose those who will participate in the survey or poll and more importantly how many participates actually responded to the survey or poll, each of these things have a bearing on the results. Those are all extremely important variables that must be considered when determining the veracity of the results, that's one reason that scientific opinions have never been considered sound based on consensus, it's totally unreliable and can give an unrealistic impression.

Of course, I'm sure you can't see all the inherent problems win such surveys and polls, I mean remember Hillary was guaranteed to win in 2016 because all the polls said it was absolutely fact.

Now, there have been several such surveys trough the years, some are interestingly similar in their results, however you must read the fine print off each and every survey to understand the methodology, if you ignore those details you do so at the of forming an opinion that give impressions but really reality.

Below you will find the fine print of four of the most widely cited “Consensus Proofs”, particular attention to the pic listing those Concensus studies and the percentage of explicit agreement in each survey, of course most people, including you, automatically assume that ‘consensus’ means “humans cause catastrophic global warming because of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.” Three of the studies do not address this issue – none of the abstracts surveyed were written to address that declaration. Yet, still people believe because they are so accustomed to believing headlines without ever delving any deeper and I can determine that is the case shortly after having a conversation when people that have not done one iota of actual investigation on the subject and who have swallowed the spoon-fed pablum.

Take for instance the most widely quoted survey, John Cook et al. 2013: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in scientific literature”’ so the claim of the infamous paper claimed 97.4% agreement with the focus on fossil fuel use as the cause of AGW. The issue however, in every single detailed review, even by those who agree with the AGW theory of Cook et al revealed that only 64 papers out of the near 12,000 papers explicitly endorse the AGW declaration that human activity in fossil fuel emissions are more than 50% responsible for warming in the last century, 11 papers stated it was a possibility, and 2 said it was natural climatic forcing. Thus the entire 97.4% Consensus and the popularized social and political meme was born and conveniently spread like wildfire.

I'm also including one of the more recent studies in AGW consensus, that of Jovana et al.

Judith Curry Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in her testimony before the Senate: “The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales.” The global warming hiatus or stagnation, as Dr Curry stated in 2014, in now in it's 19th year and as noted in NASA data, we are seeing cooling off the global temperatures not warming.

Even the hottest Sea on the Earth, the Persian Gulf has dropped 10 degrees in recent years based on Raw Temperature Data at local monitoring points. That is a drastic and very disturbing drop in temperatures. It should give warning that something far worse than global warming may be occuring and we will be woefully prepared because of the distraction of the AGW cartel.

Max Planck, father of modern physics, put it this way:
“New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.” (Address on the 25th anniversary of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft, January 1936, as quoted in Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany, 1993).

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
—WALTER LIPPMANN

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
--Michael Crichton, MD,

You have asked the question: “What if you are wrong?” The question could be asked of you, but the consequences of me being wrong would result, based on 1988 IPCC predictions of an increase in the global temperatures by 0.4-0.8C by 2010, that”scientific prediction by all those great scientific minds of the AGW failed miserably to materialize. Thus based on the IPCC even long-term increases wouldn't reach the same temperatures as during the Minoan Warming Period or remotely touch the period when the Arctic island of Zhokov was warm enough for birch trees to grow in abundance and supported human habitation.

But consider the question if you are wrong, what will be the results? Several Governments around the world are implementing policies that are drastically restricting fossil fuels for supposedly green renewable energy. Germany, for instance, will attempt to be free of fossil fuels by 2040 I believe, shutting down coal-fired plants, just as several other countries. So, what happens if the geological record follows it's cyclical pattern just as it has done for thousands of years? The global temperatures have been on a downward trend since it peaked 7,800 years ago after the last glaciation 12,000 years ago. The results of you are wrong will not only be mass starvation but massive hypothermic death.

If you read, as I have, all of the IPCC Assessments from the first one to the most recent Assessment, you will find a great number of predictions, all made by AGW scientists, all of which have failed to materialize. The IPCC predicted a 0.2 degree increase per decade, again at the raw data shows, they were not only wrong the decadal temperatures have dropped.

For you the science is settled, for me I understand every theory is one discovery away from being discredited. Of course, I've given you example after example of discoveries, by some of the most highly-qualified and prized Scientists in the fields of climatology, physics, paleontology, paleoclimatology, Earth science, astrophysics, etc. I've given you a short list of about a thousand of such scientists along with their research, yet you have not been able to provide even a scant number or their research.

What I've seen thus far is you is that you have assumed a possibility to justify a certainty. Certainty is nothing more than a perfection of knowledge beyond error or questions of doubt. I've yet to meet a single scientist in the last 40 years who held the position of a absolute certainty, in fact the entire process of any hypothesis is one of discovering all the questions of that theory and seeking to falsify it rather than prove it, for it is only through falsifiability that facts can be deemed valid. It is impossible to use a possibility to justify a certainty, unless you are intellectually dishonest about the theory in question.

Even the IPCC, in one of their Assessments, stated uncertainty:“It is likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century.”

I can't convince you, you will have to convince yourself just as I did 20 years ago after literally reading more scientific studies than you could imagine. I continue to this day, dissecting and consuming newly published Scientific Research studies, including IPCC Assessments.

A theory or hypothesis must be falsifiable to be scientific and if it's not then it's not scientific! I can cite, by name and by peer-reviewed Scientific Research thousands upon thousands of Scientists who have sought to falsify the AGW theory, they have all failed to do so.

@Daryl

Are you sure didn't earn your degree in Professional Conflation and thereby apparently suffer from Selective Perception, you've provided ample evidence that is the case. You have selectively ignored a great deal of information, never providing a competent rebuttal or even the most feeble attempt at comment to 99.9% of the scientific points that have been made in this basically one-sided "debate" the only valid explanation is that you have no capacity to cognitively form an adequate rebuttal and are forced to fall back of some of the most commonly used tactics of deflection. Interesting, you are yet another example, among a surprising number, of those in the AGW camp that pretty much Parrot exactly the same comments as you have in yours. In many cases using the exact same phrases. It astounds me just how many times I have encountered people who espouse the AGW MEME, with the exact same pattern of deflection as you have provided as a defense for AGW and somehow mistakenly think their feelbe attempts form the basis of any validity. It's almost as though you all attended the same propaganda camp of drone cherry-pickers.

Tell me what you find in this list of scientists, cherry-pick all you like:

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia

Go?ran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.

J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.

Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.

Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany

David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.

Richard J. Becherer, Ph.D. (University of Rochester), optical physicist, co-author standard reference book "Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry", former Member of the Technical Staff - MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor - University of Connecticut, Millis, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Edwin X Berry, BS (Engineering, Caltech), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), PhD (Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180, American Meteorological Society; Director, climate Physics LLC; Past positions: Edwin X Berry & Associates, President, Atmospheric Research & Technology; Program Manager for Weather Modification, RANN, National Science Foundation; Chief Scientist, Desert Research Inst airborne research facility, Bigfork, Montana, U.S.A. M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India

Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi- science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom

Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Alge?ria. Author of The Great Season Climatic Oscillation, I. RE. PHY. 1(2007) 53, The Great Season Climatic Oscillation and the Global Warming, Global Conference On Global Warming, July 6-10, 2008, Istanbul, Turkey and Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA) and the Mean Earth's Ground Temperature, arXiv:0811.0357 (November 2008)

William M. Briggs, BS (Meteorology), MS (Atmospheric Science), PhD (Statistics), Member American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association of Statisticians, Institute for Mathematical Statistics, published dozens of peer-reviewed papers including in the Journal of climate, Member of AMS's Probability and Statistics Committee, Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.

James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada

Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.

George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern

California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

Petr Chylek, PhD, Adjunct Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada - currently Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, Fellow of American Geophysical Union and the Optical Society of America, Member of the American Meteorological Society and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, now residing in Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.

Michael Coffman, PhD (ecosysytems analysis and climate Change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A..

Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom

Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom

Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada

Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.

Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University
of Auckland, New Zealand

Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England

Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.

Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The climate. Science and Politics (2009)

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Christopher Essex, PhD, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

So?ren Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal- environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark

Terrence F Flower, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, St. Catherine University, taught courses in climate Change, took students to Antarctic and tropics, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.

Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.

David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden

Katya Georgieva, MSc (Physics of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Space, specialty Meteorology), PhD (Solar-Terrestrial Physics - PhD thesis on solar influences on global climate changes), Associate Professor, Head of group "Solar dynamics and global climate change" in the Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, head of project "Solar activity influences of weather and climate" of the scientific plan of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, member of the "Climate changes" council of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Regional coordinator of the Balkan, Black sea and Caspian sea countries and member of the European Steering Committee for the International Heliophysical Year 2007-2008, deputy editor-in-chief of the international scientific journal "Sun and Geosphere", Bulgaria

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.

Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut fu?r Mathematische Physik, Technische Universita?t Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys., 2009

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director cienti?fico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International climate Seminar 2006 and climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingo?, Sweden

Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.

Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate Change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.

Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.

James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.

Douglas Hoyt, B.S. (Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), M.S. (Astro- Geophysics, University of Colorado), co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in climate Change, previously senior scientist at Raytheon (MODIS instrument development), with earlier employment at NOAA, NCAR, World Radiation Center and the Sacramento Peak Observatory, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, U.S.A.

Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.

Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.

Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.

Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Wibjo?rn Karle?n, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden

Olavi Ka?rner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia

Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Meteorology), Theoretical Meteorology, Research Faculty, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.

Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.

Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

David R. Legates, PhD, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.
Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. Leslie R. Lemon, Research Associate Meteorologist, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS), University of Oklahoma, visiting professor for the China Meteorological Administration, 2001 President of the USA National Weather Association, Independence, MO and Norman, OK, U.S.A. Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany

Bjo?rn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrta?lje, Sweden

Wayne Martin, Ph.D. (Physical Oceanography), graduate studies in oceanic circulation, Senior Research Scientist working on Arctic ice dynamics, past research in arctic physics, CEO Research, Analysis and Engineering, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.

Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway

H. Michael "Mike" Mogil, B.S., M.S. (Meteorology, Florida State University), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, on-air expert on climate Change (WGUF-radio, Naples, FL), 28 years forecast and research experience NOAA/NWS; 25 years weather education; author of Extreme Weather - 300 page trade book, including chapter on climate Change and How the Weatherworks, Naples, Florida, U.S.A.

Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

Nils-Axel Mo?rner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Robert Neff, BSc (meteorology, Penn State), M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), former Weather Officer (Lt. Col., USAF); Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.

Richard Newsome, PhD, Environmental Biology (teaches climatology, climate- related geology and environmental biology), Professor, Beloit College, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia

Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area" ), Linko?pings University, Sweden.

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.

Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand

Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric

Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Oleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS (mathematics and atmospheric physics - St. Petersburg State University), PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics), principal scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory, St. Petersburg, Russia

Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands

Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

William M. Schaffer, BS, Ph.D. (Princeton), Guggenheim Memorial Fellow, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (special interest in nonlinear dynamics and climate), University of Arizona, U.S.A.

Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-

Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.

Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Stanley J. Smith, BA, MS Physics (theoretical physics, Washington State University), Statistical Detection Theory (University of Iowa), Consultant - algorithm based atmospheric disturbance and anomaly prediction, vertical wind and vapor radiometer/radar measurement analysis, isotope identification algorithms (Constellation Tech Inc.), Lakewood Ranch, Florida, U.S.A.

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden

Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.

George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of

State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.

M. Ray Thomasson, Ph.D. (Geology and Geophysics), practicing for 50 years, studying Global climate Change for 5 years, Past President of the American Geological Institute, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.

Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.

Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009

Brian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid dynamics spacilaization) at the University of Maryland, Technical manager at US Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical referee for the US Department of Energy's Office of Science programs in climate and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Tatiana V. Valentinovna, MS. (Chemistry; Moscow State Univ., USSR); Ph.D. (Biophysics and Applied Mathematics; Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, USSR), Research Associate - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Arizona, U.S.A.

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate Change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand

A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Michael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology (macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Go?sta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Go?teborg University, Go?teborg, Sweden

Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.

Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.

Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program
Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.

@Daryl

Globally there are approximately 18,000 qualified Climatologists, guess how many are in the AGW camp? Not many at all... But go ahead knock yourself out trying to boaster your position. Can you name even 50 AGW scientists, please do so.

Aside from the 31,000 America scientists, and I have that list if you worked like to review it I'll make it available to you. Here are more scientists that have rejected the AGW hypothesis:

Joseph H. Abeles Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Director, Business Development Sarnoff Corporation

Harold M. Agnew, President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989) Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 -1979), E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS

Sol Aisenberg, President, International Technology Group Formerly, Staff Member, MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School; Visiting Research Professor, Boston University

Ralph B. Alexander, Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University President, R.B. Alexander & Associates Technology and market analysis in environmentally friendly materials and coatings Author, Global Warming False Alarm (Canterbury)

Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina -Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation

Louis J. Allamandola, Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research Center Fellow APS, AAAS Member ACS, American Astronomical Society, International Astronomical Union

James L. Allen, Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing Company (retired)

Arthur G. Anderson, Vice President and former Director of Research IBM (retired)

Fellow APS, Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

Charles R. Anderson, President and Principal Scientist Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc. Former Research Physicist, Department of Navy Former Research Scientist, Lockheed Martin Laboratories Member MRS, AVS

David V. Anderson, CEO, Asora Education Enterprises Research Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Former Councilor APS Senior Fellow APS

Eva Andrei, Professor of Physics Rutgers University Fellow APS

Robert H. Austin, Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS; APS
Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010 Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and Sciences

David A. Bahr, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Bemidji State University

John M. Baker, Research Staff Member IBM T.J. Watson Research Center (retired) Life Member APS

David F. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Colorado Fellow and Life Member APS; Member American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, AAPT, AAAS

Franco Battaglia, Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy Life Member APS

Peter J. Baum, Member of the Technical Staff General Research Corporation (retired) Formerly, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at Riverside Life Member American Geophysical Union

David J. Benard, Retired Aerospace Scientist Co-Inventor of the Chemical Oxygen- Iodine Laser

Richard W. Benjamin, Senior Advisory Scientist Savannah River Site (DOE) (retired) Member ANS, AAAS

Lev I. Berger, President California Institute of Electronics and Materials Science Author, Semiconductor Materials; and Material and Device Characterization Measurements (CRC Press)

Stuart B. Berger, Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager Xerox Corporation (retired)

Ami E. Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego Fellow APS

Alan Berman, Dean Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami (retired) Former Director of Research, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Fellow APS, Fellow Acoustical Society of America

Barry L. Berman, Columbian Professor and Chair Physics Department The George
Washington University Fellow APS

Edwin X. Berry, Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180 Member American Meteorological Society

Frances M. Berting, Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board and Committee (2000-present) Los Alamos County Council (2001-2008) Formerly, Materials Scientist, Hanford (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Westinghouse, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Vladislav A. Bevc, Associate Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (retired); Formerly, Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation; Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Stanford University) Senior Member IEEE

Joseph J. Bevelacqua, President, Bevelacqua Resources Author, Health Physics in the 21st Century (Wiley); Contemporary Health Physics (Wiley) Member American Nuclear Society, AMS, Mathematical Association of America, Health Physics Society, American Academy of Health Physics, AAPT Diplomat of the American Board of Health Physics

Matthew S. Bigelow, Assistant Professor Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science St. Cloud State University Member OSA

Clifford Bruce Bigham, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (retired) Senior Member APS, Sustaining Member CAP

Arie Bodek, George E. Pake Professor of Physics University of Rochester Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004 Fellow APS
Stephen E. Bodner, Naval Research Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

John W. Boring, Professor Emeritus of Engineering Physics University of Virginia F.
Paul Brady Principal, BPF Investments/Charitable Investments Professor of Physics
University of California at Davis (retired) Senior Fulbright Scholar, Ford Foundation Fellow Fellow APS

James D. Brasher Sr,. Professional Staff The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Air and Missile Defense Department Life Member Sigma Xi
Richard J. Briggs, Formerly, Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Associate Professor, MIT Fellow APS, AAAS

Lowell S. Brown, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Washington Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

Thomas G. Brown, Professor of Optics The Institute of Optics University of Rochester Fellow OSA

Daniel M. Bubb, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Rutgers University, Camden

William R. Burdett, Principal Consultant, FSIM Consulting Formerly, E-Government Architect U.S. Department of Justice (retired); Geophysical Modeling and Simulation General Research Corporation

William T. Buttler, Experimental Physicist Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Editor, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 2009 (APS) Timothy D. Calvin President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired) Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries Member ACS

William J. Camp, Emeritus Director: Computation, Information, and Mathematics Sandia National Laboratories Co-founder, IUPAP Commission C-20, The Commission on Computational Physics Nova Award for Invention of Cray XT3 Computer Architecture (Lockheed Martin Corporation) Fellow APS, Member IEEE Computer Society

Mark L. Campbell, Professor, Department of Chemistry United States Naval Academy Life Member APS

Gregory H. Canavan, Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Jeffrey A. Casey, President Rockfield Research, Inc. Member IEEE

Jack G. Castle, Senior Scientist Sandia National Laboratories (retired) Fellow and Life Member APS

Carmen A. Catanese, Executive Vice President Sarnoff Corporation (retired) Life Member APS

Jose ? M. Cervero, Professor of Theoretical Physics Departamento de Fisica Fundamental Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Salamanca

C. Todd Chadwick, Experimental Design Consultant Member AES Joseph F. Chiang Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS

Michael R. Clover, Science Applications International Corporation

William T. Coffey, Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Dublin, Trinity College Author, The Langevin Equation (World Scientific Publishing) Member Editorial Board, Advances in Chemical Physics Member Royal Irish Academy; Fellow APS, IET, Institute of Physics

Roger W. Cohen, Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006 Fellow APS

Robert K. Conger, President Conger and Associates Consulting

John W. Cox, Director, Advanced Sensor Engineering Aerospace Corporation Lawrence Cranberg, Professor of Physics University of Virginia (retired) Fellow APS Barry D. Crane, Project Director Institute for Defense Analyses Life Member APS
Steven R. Cranmer, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006 Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics Member American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union

J. F. Cuderman, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Life Member APS Stephen M. Curry Director of Engineering Dallas Semiconductor Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (retired) Member OSA
Jerry M. Cuttler, President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc. Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power industry President, Canadian Nuclear Society (1995-1996) Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society, Member American Nuclear Society

James H. Degnan, Principal Physicist Directed Energy Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph G. Depp, Founding President and CEO, Accuray Incorporated (retired) Stereotactic radiosurgery technology Founding President and CEO, PsiStar Incorporated Life Member APS

Daniel K. Deptuck, Staff Scientist, Optoelectronics Engineering CMC Microsystems Member SPIE

Riccardo DeSalvo, Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) California Institute of Technology Member ASME

James A. Deye, Nuclear and Medical physicist Life Member APS

Eugene H. Dirk, APS Division of Astrophysics, and Division of Computational Physics
Topical Groups on Gravity, and Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants
Albert C. Doskocil, Program Manager Raytheon Company (retired) Life Member APS
David H. Douglass, Professor of Physics University of Rochester Fellow APS

Jerry T. Dowell, Senior Staff Scientist Agilent Technologies (retired) Member IEEE, American Society for Mass Spectroscopy, AAPT

Paul J. Drallos, President and CEO, Plasma Dynamics Corporation (retired) Kinetic & fluid dynamic computer simulation services

James E. Draper, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Davis Fellow APS

Murray Dryer, Emeritus Scientist Space Weather Prediction Center (retired), NWS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Science Award for interplanetary shock wave research (AIAA) 1975 Member American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, AIAA

William T. Duffy Jr., Professor Emeritus of Physics Santa Clara University

Tomasz Durakiewicz, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory

David F. Edwards, Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Formerly, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University; Lincoln Laboratory, MIT

Albert G. Engelhardt, President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc. Environmental control and security systems Senior Life Member IEEE

James E. Enstrom, Research Professor Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center University of California at Los Angeles Life Member APS

Vladimir Escalante-Ramirez, Researcher Center for Radio Astronomy and Astrophysics National Autonomous University of Mexico

Mario E. Fajardo, Principal Research Chemist Munitions Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Member ACS

John R. Fanchi, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Energy Institute Texas Christian University Author, Energy in the 21st Century (World Scientific
Publishing); Author, Energy: Technology and Directions for the Future (Elsevier) Member SEG, SPE

Jens G. Feder, Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo Fellow APS

Mauro Ferrari, Professor and Chairman Department of Nanomedicine and Biomedical Engineering Professor of Internal Medicine University of Texas Health Center
Douglas E. Fields, Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico

Edward J. Finn, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Georgetown University Chair, Department of Physics (1990-1993) President University faculty Senate (1980-1982) NSF Program Manager (1981-1983) Co-author, Fundamental University Physics
Robert A. Fisher, Consultant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Scientist (retired) Department of Chemistry and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California at Berkeley

Michael M. Fitelson, Chief Scientist, Micro-Systems Enablers Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems

Joseph R. Florian, Co-Founder of Jaycor Networks Incorporated Senior Scientist, Jaycor, SAIC Member IEEE

Harold K. Forsen, Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation (retired) Governing Board, National Research Council (1994-2003) Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (1995-2003) Arthur Holly Compton Award (ANS) 1972 Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, ANS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Bruce L. Freeman, Senior Experimental Physicist, Ktech Corporation Formerly, Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M Coauthor Explosively Driven Pulsed Power (Springer);Explosive Pulsed Power (Imperial College) Member IEEE Plasma Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society

Michael H. Frese, Designer/Developer of Multiphysics Simulation Codes and Applications Founder and Managing Member of NumerEx, LLC Member SIAM, IEEE

James L. Friar, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Martin Fricke, Corporate Officer Science Applications International Corporation; The
Titan Corporation Former Elected Member POPA Fellow APS

Peter D. Friedman, Associate Professor Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society Ian J. Fritz Research Physicist, Sandia
National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award 1991 Basic Energy Sciences Sustained Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993 NOVA Award 2001 (Lockheed Martin Corporation)

Rodger L. Gamblin, Managing Director Corona Color, LLC
John C. Garth, Research Physicist Air Force Research Laboratory (retired) Member ANS, ASTM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Computational Medical Physics Working Group

G. Roger Gathers, Senior Scientist, M. H. Chew and Associates Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1967-1993) Author, Selected Topics in Shock Wave Physics and Equation of State Modeling (World Scientific Publishing)
Gary J. Gerardi, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Physics William Paterson University

Ulrich H. Gerlach, Professor and Vice Chair Department of Mathematics Ohio State University

Ivar Giaever, Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS

George T. Gillies, Research Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science; and Research Professor, Department of Physics University of Virginia Clinical Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Fellow APS

Damon Giovanielli, President, Sumner Associates scientific consultants Former Division Leader, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL staff member, program and line manager (1972-1993) Fellow AAAS

Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – Pan American Member AMS, Albert Gold Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University (retired)

Ronald B. Goldfarb, National Institute of Standards and Technology Life Member APS

Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section APS

Paul M. Grant, EPRI Science Fellow (retired) IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus Senior Life Fellow APS

Howard D. Greyber, University of Pennsylvania (retired) Formerly, Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society

Ronald J. Gripshover, Senior Research Physicist Naval Surface Weapons Center (retired)

Roger Grismore, Research Professor Physics Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Member American Geophysical Union, N. Y. Academy of Sciences

David E. Groce, Science Applications International Corporation (retired) Formerly, General Atomics Corporation Member AAAS, Lyncean Group

Mike Gruntman, Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California Author, Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry (AIAA) Luigi G. Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics) 2006 Member American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA George Hacken Senior Director, Safety-Critical Systems New York City Transit Authority Formerly, Senior Member of the Technical Staff, GEC-Marconi Aerospace Chair, New York Chapter, IEEE Computer Society Member AMS, SIAM, ANS, AIAA, New York Academy of Sciences

David S. Hacker, Senior Staff Research Engineer Amoco Corporation (retired) Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering University of Illinois, Chicago Circle (1965-1981) Fellow AIChE

Aksel Hallin, Canada Research Chair in Astroparticle Physics Department of Physics University of Alberta Fellow APS

Sultan Hameed, Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York

William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences

Rodney E. Harrington, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology Arizona State University Fellow APS, AAAS; Member ACS, American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Joseph G. Harrison, Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham Member ACS, MRS

Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut Editor, The Energy Advocate Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake) Dennis B. Hayes Research Physicist Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired) Fellow APS

John R. Henley, Science Applications International Corporation Life Member APS Joseph F. Hiller, Inchem, LLC Member ACS

Jack M. Hollander, Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley Vice-President Emeritus, The Ohio State University First Head, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS
David B. Holtkamp, Scientific Staff Member Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory

John H. Huckans, Assistant Professor Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
John C. Ingraham, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Member American Geophysical Union

Helen Jackson, Research Physicist, Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Laboratory Member Materials Research Society, IEEE

Kenneth A. Jackson, President, Materials Research Society (1976-1977) President, American Association for Crystal Growth (1970-1976) Chalmers Award (Materials Society of the AIME) 2003 Award of the American Association for Crystal Growth 1993; Matthewson Gold Medal (AIME) 1966 Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS, The Metallurgical Society

Michael A. Joffe, Test Engineer Manager Luminus Devices, Inc. Member OSA H.
Richard Johnson Co-Founder and Former CEO Watkins-Johnson Company (retired) Life Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

James R. Johnson, 3M Company (retired) Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame) Member National Academy of Engineering

O’Dean Judd, LANL Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Technical Advisor and Consultant Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS

Andrew Kaldor, Distinguished Scientific Advisor Manager of Breakthrough Research ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow AAAS, Member ACS

Alexander E. Kaplan, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005 Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996 Fellow OSA
Thomas J. Karr, Director, DARPA & Strategic Projects, Advanced Concepts & Technology Division Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1984-1996) Editor, Applied Optics (1991-1994) Member OSA, AAAS; Senior Member IEEE

Thomas W. Karras, Senior Fellow Lockheed Martin Commercial Space Systems Life Member APS, Member OSA, AIAA, SPIE

David J. Kaup, Provost’s Distinguished Professor Department of Mathematics University of Central Florida

Jonathan Katz, Professor of Physics Washington University
William E. Keller, Leader, Low Temperature Physics Group 1971-1985 Los Alamos
National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

Hugh Kendrick, Acting Director Office of Plans and Analysis, Asst. Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE Assistant to the President, Science Applications International Corporation (retired) Life Member APS, Member ANS

John M. Kennel, Autonetics Division, Boeing North American (retired) Formerly, Electronics Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation Member AAAS, AIAA
Paul I. Kingsbury, Manager, Physical Properties Research Department Corning Inc. (retired)

Robert S. Knox, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Rochester Member APS Council 1985-1988 Fellow APS

William A. Koldewyn, Senior Consultant Strategic Space Development, Inc. Adjunct Professor of Physics, Dixie State College Staff Consultant and SBSS Chief Scientist, Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. (retired)

Richard V. Kollarits, Member of the Technical Staff AT&T Laboratories/Research, Retired

Iannis Kominis, Assistant Professor Department of Physics University of Crete Robert A. Koslover, Senior Scientist Scientific Applications and Research Associates
(SARA), Inc.

M. Kristiansen, C.B.Thornton/P.W.Horn Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Fellow APS, IEEE
Moyses Kuchnir, Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (retired) Life Member APS, Member IEEE, AAAS

Lorenz A. Kull, President and Chief Operating Officer Science Applications International Corporation (retired) Life Member APS; Member AAAS, IEEE
Joseph A. Kunc, Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California Fellow APS

Gary S. Kyle, George W. Gardner Professor of Physics New Mexico State University

Paul L. La Celle, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering Former Chair, Department of Biophysics University of Rochester Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort

Sau-Hai Lam, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Princeton University Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow AIAA

Steven K. Lamoreaux, Professor of Physics Yale University Former Laboratory Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory APS Outstanding Referee Fellow APS, Life Member APS

Jerzy M. Langer, Institute of Physics Polish Academy of Sciences Honorary Vice President, Euroscience Fellow APS, Member Academia Euroapea Ronald C. Lasky Professor, Thayer School of Engineering Director, Cook Engineering Design Center Dartmouth College Senior Technologist, Indium Corporation

Robert B. Laughlin, Professor of Physics, Stanford University
E. O. Lawrence, Award in Physics 1985 Oliver E. Buckley Prize (APS) 1986 Nobel
Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS Andre? LeClair, Professor of Physics Cornell University

Robert E. LeLevier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957) Physics Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971) R&D Associates (1971-1983) Eos Technologies, Inc. (1983-1993)

John F. Lescher, High Technology Systems and Product Development and Marketing, Civilian and Defense Industries Author, Online Market Research (Addison-Wesley) Fellow APS; Senior Member AIAA; Member IEEE, American Marketing Association, Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals

James D. Lester, Research Physicist (retired) Life Member IEEE

Robert E. Levine, Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired) Member
ACM, IEEE

Harold W. Lewis, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

John D. Lindl, James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007 Fellow APS, AAAS

Xavier Llobet, Research Associate Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Gabriel G. Lombardi, Senior Scientist, Phase Coherence, Inc. National Research
Council Associate (NIST, 1980-82) Life Member APS, Member OSA Michael D. Lubin, Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)

Farrel W. Lytle, CEO, The EXAFS Company First Recipient of the Farrel W. Lytle Award (SSRL) 1998 Fellow APS, AAAS; Member ACS, Society for American Archaeology

Alfred U. MacRae, President, MacRae Technologies Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, IEEE

Frank L. Madarasz, Formerly, Scientific Advisor and Program Manager Air Force Office of Scientific Research Project Scientist, International Space Station (NASA) Member SPIE

Phillip W. Mange, Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division Scientific Consultant to the Director of Research, Naval Research Laboratory (retired)

John E. Mansfield, Vice Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Kristanka Marinova, Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Chemistry Sofia
University, Bulgaria

Richard Marrus, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley Fellow APS

John Martinis, Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara APS Fellow David T. Marx, Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University
Joseph Maserjian, Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)

John H. McAdoo, Aerospace Physicist Member IEEE, AAAS

Gene H. McCall, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) E. O.

Lawrence Award 1988 Former Chairman, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Fellow AIAA, Associate Fellow Royal Institute of Navigation

Thomas A. McClelland, Vice President, Commercial Products Frequency Electronics, Inc.

Harold Mirels, Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Fellow APS, AIAA Member National Academy of Engineering

Jim Mitroy, Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology

Charles Darwin University, Australia APS Outstanding Referee: 2010

Michael Monce, Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union

Christopher R. Monroe, Bice Zorn Professor of Physics Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland and NIST Chair-elect, APS Division of AMO Physics Executive Committee, APS Topical Group on Quantum Information Fellow APS, Institute of Physics

David S. Moore, R&D Scientist Los Alamos National Laboratory President, IUPAC Analytical Chemistry Division (2002-2003) Los Alamos Fellows Prize 2009 Fellow APS; Member IUPAC, ACS, Society for Advanced Spectroscopy

Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Principle Author, Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes (Springer) Fellow APS, AAAS; MacArthur Fellow

Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS, NYAS

Rodney W. Nichols, President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001) Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990) Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970) Fellow AAAS, NYAS

Chad J. Njeim, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of New Mexico

Gordon C. Oehler, Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, Science Applications International Corporation (1998-2004) National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and Proliferation (1989-1992)

William P. Oliver, Professor of Physics Tufts University Life Member APS
Frank R. Paolini, Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired) Senior Member APS, Member IEEE

Byung Kyu Park, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of California at Berkeley

Albert C. Parr, Chief, Optical Technology Division NIST (retired) Fellow APS; Member OSA, SPIE

Daniel N. Payton III, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation (1992-present) Eos Technologies (1984-1992) Technical Director of Nuclear Technology Air Force Weapons Laboratory (1976-1984)

John T. Pearson, Research Assistant Microfluidics Group Brigham Young University Member AIAA

Erik M. Pell, Xerox Corporation (retired) Author: From Dreams to Riches – The Story of Xerography (Carlson) Edward Goodrich Acheson Medal (Electrochemical Society) 1986 President, Electrochemical Society (1980-1981) Fellow APS, Honorary Member ECS, Senior Member IEEE

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Physicist (retired) Operations Evaluation Group, MIT US Naval Ordnance Laboratory Senior Member APS

Richard S. Post, Chairman of the Board NEXX Systems, Inc. Fellow APS Joseph F. Prince, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Mechanical Engineering Brigham Young University

John X. Przybysz, Consulting Engineer Northrop Grumman Corporation Fellow IEEE

Donald Rapp, Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials (Springer-Verlag) Fellow APS

Ned S. Rasor, Consulting Physicist Formerly, President and CEO, Rasor Associates, Inc. Member IEEE, AIAA

Richard T. Rauch, NASA Stennis Space Center Life Member APS, Associate Fellow AIAA

Michael F. Reusch, Partner, Computational Market Dynamics Formerly, Staff Scientist, Grumman Aerospace Corporation Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
John E. Rhoads, Professor of Physics Midwestern State University (retired) Member SPE

Harry I. Ringermacher Sr., Research Physicist General Electric Global Research Center AIP "History of Physics in Industry" Participant at GE Sir William Herschel Medal (American Academy of Thermology) Copper Black Award (American Mensa) 2003 and 2007

Stanley Robertson, Emeritus Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Berol Robinson, Principal Scientific Officer UNESCO (retired) Member AAPT, AAAS, Association des E?cologistes Pour le Nucle?aire

Robert C. Rohr, Reactor Physicist Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (retired) Former Adjunct Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Daniel J. Rogers, Staff Scientist Applied Information Sciences Department Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Member OSA

Kelly R. Roos, Professor of Physics Bradley University

John J. Ryan, President HEP Arts, Inc. (Advanced Software for IT) Member AAAS, The Planetary Society

Isaac C. Sanchez, William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U.S. Department of Commerce Medals 1980, 1983 Edward U. Condon Award (NIST) 1983; SPE International Research Award 1996 Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS

Raymond E. Sarwinski, President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc. Life Member APS
Kenneth V. Saunders, Senior Research Engineer and Project Leader RAND Corporation (retired) Lead Author, Priority Setting and Strategic Sourcing in Naval Research,Development and Technology Infrastructure (RAND) Life Member APS, Member SIAM, Mathematical Association of America, AIAA

Nicola Scafetta, Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University Member American Geophysical Union

Mark D. Semon, Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Bates College Member American Academy of Forensic Scientists, American College of Forensic Examiners

Thomas P. Sheahen, President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences consulting) Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer) Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78)

Arnold J. Sierk, Technical Staff Member Theoretical Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph Silverman, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering University of Maryland Fellow APS, ANS
James D. Simpson, Senior Scientist Argonne National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union

Frans W. Sluijter, Professor, Department of Applied Physics Eindhoven University of Technology Former Chair, Plasma Physics Division, European Physics Society Former Vice President, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Member Dutch Physical Society, Institute of Physics UK

John R. Smith, Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California at Davis Life Member APS

Hermann Statz, Raytheon Company (retired) Microwave Pioneer Award (IEEE) 2004 Fellow APS

Nick Steph, Chair, Department of Physics Franklin College Member AAPT, ACS D. Scott Stewart Shao Lee Soo Professor Mechanical Science and Engineering University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Fellow APS (Division of Fluid Dynamics), Fellow Institute of Physics

Peter Stilbs, Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden Life Member APS

Norman D. Stockwell, Senior Project Engineer, TRW (retired) Former Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation Life Member APS, Member AAAS
Thomas F. Stratton, Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS William R. Stratton, Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Member AEC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety Chair ANS Nuclear Reactor Accident Study Fellow ANS

Szymon Suckewer, Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Director of Plasma Science & Technology Program Princeton University Fellow APS, OSA
Ronald M. Sundelin, Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech Fellow APS

Andrei Szilagyi, Formerly, Chief Scientist, Aura Systems, Inc. Chief Technologist, Radiant Technology Corporation Chief Scientist, NanoMuscle Inc. Member MRS, Electrochemical Society, TMS – The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society
Willard L. Talbert, Scientific Consultant (1993-present) Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1976-1993 (retired) Professor of Physics, Iowa State University (1961-1976) Fellow APS

Lu Ting, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University Lead Author, Vortex Dominated Flows (Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer) Member SIAM, AIAA, AAM

Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University Coauthor, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

Salvatore Torquato, Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics Princeton University 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics Fellow APS

Rusty S. Towell, Professor of Physics Abilene Christian University Member IEEE
Edward S. Troy, Principal Engineer Aerospace Consulting Wireless, RF, microwave, analog/DSP, and GPS circuits and systems Member IEEE, AAAS

Frederick L. Vook, Director (Emeritus), Physical and Chemical Sciences, Sandia National Laboratories Author, Radiation Effects in Semiconductors (Plenum Press) Lead Author, Report to the APS by the Study Group on Physics Problems Related to Energy Technologies: Radiation Effects on Materials Fellow APS

Richard W. Vook, Professor of Physics Director, Solid State Science and Technology Program Syracuse University (retired) Member AVS, Electron Microscopy Society of America

William B. Walters Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland John Simon Guggenheim Fellow (1986) ACS Award in Nuclear Chemistry (2001) Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, University of Mainz (2002) Life Member APS, Member ACS

John Weiner, Visiting Professor, University of Maryland CNST Visiting Fellow, NIST Professeur des Universite?s Universite? Paul Sabatier (retired) Fellow APS, Member OSA Steven J. Werkema, Deputy Head Fermilab Antiproton Source Department Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Samuel A. Werner, Curators’ Professor Emeritus The University of Missouri Guest Researcher, NIST Fellow APS, AAAS

Bruce J. West, Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University Fellow APS
John B. West, Honorary Scientist, STFC Daresbury Laboratory Honorary Scientist, International Board for UV Conferences Fellow APS, Member Institute of Physics, UK Willard W. White, Senior Scientist, Division Director Mission Research Corporation (retired) Life Member APS; Member AAAS, IEEE

Bruce R. Wienke, Program Manager Los Alamos National Laboratory President Southwest Enterprises Inc. Author, Hyperbaric Physics and Bubble Mechanics (Best Publishing) Fellow American Academy of Underwater Sciences

Jerry B. Wilhelmy, Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)

David C. Williams, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories (retired) Member AAAS, ACS, ANS Edward L. Wills Research Associate Professor Emeritus Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham Peter J. Wojtowicz, Group Head, Senior Member Technical Staff (retired) RCA Labs, GE, Sarnoff Corporation Fellow APS

Gregory A Wright, Chief Technology Officer Antiope Associates LLC
Richard K. Wright, Senior Member of the Technical Staff Siemens Optoelectronic Division

Ya-Hong Xie, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles Senior Member IEEE, Member Materials Research Society
M. John Yoder, Principal Physicist The MITRE Corporation Life Member APS Michael Zaezjev, Energy, Materials, and Telecommunications Center Institute National de la Recherche ? Scientifique, Varrennes, Canada

Claude Zeller, Principal Fellow Pitney Bowles Inc. Member IEEE

Martin V. Zombeck, Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (retired) Author, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press) Coauthor, High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy of Cosmic Plasmas (Cambridge University Press)

James L. Allen, Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing Company (retired)

F. Paul Brady, Principal, BPF Investments/Charitable Investments Professor of Physics University of California at Davis (retired) Senior Fulbright Scholar, Ford Foundation Fellow, Fellow APS

Joseph F. Chiang, Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS
Stephen M. Curry, Director of Engineering, Dallas Semiconductor, Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (retired) Member OSA

Ian J. Fritz, Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award 1991, Basic Energy Sciences Sustained Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993, NOVA Award 2001 (Lockheed Martin Corporation)

Dennis B. Hayes, Research Physicist, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired), Fellow APS

H. Richard Johnson, Co-Founder and Former CEO, Watkins-Johnson Company (retired), Life Fellow IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

Karl F. Scheibner, Electro Optical Engineer, Senior Staff, Advanced Programs, Strategic Missiles and Defense Systems, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
D. Scott Stewart, Shao Lee Soo Professor, Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Fellow APS (Division of Fluid Dynamics), Fellow Institute of Physics

@Daryl

Here's yet another 917 scientists who reject AGW:

Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, John Adams, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard Ernest Adams, Richard L. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Roy B. Adams, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William W. Adams, William P. Adams, MD, William M. Adams, PhD, William John Adams, William D. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James B Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert K. Allen, MD, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert C. Allen, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert H. Allgood, Robert W. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James K. Anderson, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Robert E. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Roy E. Anderson, Russell Anderson, Theodore D. Anderson, Thomas P. Anderson, Thomas F. Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Tom P. Anderson, Walton O. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Wilbert C. Anderson, William L. Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Charles S. Andes, David J. Andes, Mark J. Andorka, Robynn Andracsek, John Robert Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, John Andrako, PhD, Ivan J. Andrasik, Peter R. Andreana, PhD, Gilbert M. Andreen, Eva Andrei, PhD, George Andreiev, Richard M. Andres, PhD, Douglas R Andress, Steven M. Andreucci, James F. Andrew, PhD, James M. Andrew, Felixe A. Andrews, Frederick T. Andrews, Harry N. Andrews, John Stevens Andrews, PhD, Marion L. Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W. Andrews, Russell A. Andrews, Russell S. Andrews, PhD, Scott Andrews, PhD, Timothy Andreychek, Lois Andros, Edward A. Andrus, M. B. Andrus, PhD, Walter S. Andrus, Robert E. Angel, Ernest F. Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, PhD, Francis M. Angeloni, PhD, T. Angelosaute, Steven T. Angely, Claude B. Anger, Robert H. Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Keith Angle, Walter C. Anglemeyer, Howard P. Angstadt, PhD, Micheal J. Anhorn, Kevin P. Ankenbrand, William D. Ankney, William L Anliker, Stuart H. Anness, MD, Stig A. Annestrand, Edward J Annick, B. M. Anose, PhD, Mohammed R. Ansari, Gregory W. Antal, Bradley C. Antanaitis, PhD, John Allen Anthes, PhD, Elizabeth Y. Anthony, PhD, Jack R. Anthony, Lee Saunders Anthony, PhD, Robert D. Anthony, Charles H. Antinori, PhD, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Herbert D. Anton, Nick J. Antonas, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Wilfred L. Antonson, Stephen P. Antony, Mary J. Anzia, PhD, Clarence R. Apel, MD, Henry W. Apfelbach, MD, P. J. Apice, Carl Apicella, Bruce W. Apland, David R. Appel, Kenneth P. Apperson, Norman Apperson, W. H. Appich Jr., Lynn Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H. Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, James K. Applegate, PhD, Lowell N. Applegate, John K. Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Douglas E. Applequist, PhD, Morris Herman Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard Apuzzo II, J. B. Aquilla, MD, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Steven B. Aragon, MD, Orlando A. Arana, Eric C. Araneta, Jonathan Arata, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Anatoly L Arber, PhD, Harry D. Arber, R. Kent Arblaster, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, Earl F. Arbuckle, John Arcadi, MD, Antonio E. Arce, Ed Arce, James R. Arce, Frank G Arcella, PhD, Byron J. Arceneaux, Leon M. Arceneaux, Webster J. Arceneaux Jr., John Arch, Diane M Archer, Donald Archer, William W. Archer, Patrick J. Archey, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, John L Archie, Angela N. Archon, William Bryant Ard, PhD, William Ard, Richard J. Ardine Arthur, Joe R. Arechavaleta, Christopher Arend, Robert W. Arends, Elton E. Arensman, Vittorio K. Argento, PhD, Harold V. Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, John W. Argue, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William J. Arion, PhD, Gary Arithson, Zaven S. Ariyan, PhD, Alfred Arkell, PhD, Raymond D Arkwright, Giacomo Armand, PhD, Gertrude D. Armbruster, PhD, Thomas G. Armbuster, MD, Bradley Armentrout, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Lew Armer, Joseph S Armijo, PhD, Ralph Elmer Armington, PhD, Bobby M. Armistead, William E Armour, Robert L. Arms, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Clifford B. Armstrong Jr., Desiree A. Armstrong, PhD, Glenn M. Armstrong, James E. Armstrong, James R. Armstrong, DVM, Lou Armstrong, Lowell Todd Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D. Armstrong, PhD, Melvin B. Armstrong, Robert L. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Lee Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Harold H. Arndt, Jerome C. Arnett Jr., MD, Ross Harold Arnett, PhD, William S. Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J. Arnholt, PhD, Aaron J Arnold, Charles W. Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, David Arnold, Edwin L. Arnold, Gregory B. Arnold, Herbert K. Arnold, Jack N. Arnold, John K Arnold, DVM, Lance L. Arnold, Marcia L. Arnold, R. Arnold, PhD, Randall W. Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr., DVM, Stephen Arnold, Timothy D. Arnold, William Archibald Arnold, PhD, John H Arns, Jr, Lester C. Arnwine, James T. Arocho, MD, Sidney O. Arola, Casper J. Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, Joseph Bartholomew Arots, PhD, Adrian Arp, PhD, Charles Hammond Arrington, PhD, Dale E. Arrington, PhD, Donald R. Arrington, Clement R. Arrison, Rhea T. Van Arsdall, John V. Artale, James S. Arthur, PhD, Charles G. Artinian, MD, Robert Artz, Jaime N. Aruguete, MD, Delano Z. Arvin, PhD, Joseph J. Arx, Goro G Asaki, George J. Asanovich, Charles H. Asbill, Bob J. Ascherl, Alvin G. Ash, Michael W. Ashberry, Edward V. Ashburn, Joe E. Ashby, PhD, Kenny Ashby, Randolph W Ashby, PhD, Raymond A. Ashcraft, Charles R. Ashford, A. Ashley, PhD, Doyle Allen Ashley, PhD, Edward E. Ashley, Holt Ashley, PhD, Maynard B. Ashley, Warren Cotton Ashley, PhD, Wayne A. Ashley, William M. Ashley, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P. Ashman, Abhay Ashtekar, PhD, Philip T. Ashton, Romney A. Ashton, MD, Walter R. Ashwill, Bob Ashworth, Jim F. Ashworth, Monroe Ashworth, Robert A Ashworth, Robert S. Ashworth, Victor Asirvatham, PhD, Orv B. Askeland, Ann Askew, B. Askildsen, Charles W. Askins, Philip R. Askman, Tom Asmas, PhD, Robert C. Asmus, Erik Aspelin, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Mike Assad, Andrew P. Assenmacher, Orazio J. Astarita, Jacob F. Asti, Everett L. Astleford, Eugene Roy Astley, R. Lee Aston, PhD, Raymond J. Astor Sr., Otilia J. Asuncion, MD, Charles E. Atchison, James Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Greg J. Aten, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, Michael J. Atherton, PhD, William J. Atherton, PhD, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Arthur C. Atkins, David C. Atkins, Larry P. Atkins, Mark D. Atkins, D. O. Atkinson, Erika J Atkinson, John P. Atkinson, MD, John R. Atkinson, Keith Atkinson, Larry N. Atkinson, Lynn A Atkinson, Matthew R. Atkinson, Stanley L. Atnipp, Richard Attig, Leonardo D. Attorre, William J. Attwooll, Jerry C. Atwell, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robert C. Atwood, Luben Atzeff, MD, Jerry Y. Au, Lester C. Auble, Darrel D. Auch, James C. Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Daniel J. Aucutt, Bryan Audiffred, William H. Audley, Louis A. Auerbach, Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD, Keith H. Aufderheide, PhD, William R. Aufricht, Dale A. Augenstein, PhD, Owen H. Auger, Dustin M. Aughenbaugh, Gregory S Augspurger, Joe Augspurger, PhD, Brad August, James K. August, Mike August, Brian Augustine, PhD, W. David Augustine, Frederick N. Aukeman, J. Todd Aukerman, C. Mark. Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD, John B. Aultmann Jr., Thomas E. Aumock, Bob J. Aumueller, Henry Spiese Aurand, Richard A. Aurand, Richard Aurisano, PhD, Joeseph D Aurizio, Brian E. Ausburn, Kent E Ausburn, PhD, Kenny Ausmus, Kurt L. Austad, Alfred Ells Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Carlton L. Austin, D. Austin, D. Austin, PhD, Harold T. Austin, Lloyd H. Austin, Michael N. Austin, Paul E. Austin, Robert L. Austin, Robert H Austin, PhD, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Ward H. Austin, Edward T. Auth, Donald W. Autio, Amalia R. Auvigne, MD, Andrew B. Avalon, William E. Avera, Mark Averett, Jon R. Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Rosario D. Averion, MD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Nathan M. Avery, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J. Avila, Luis A. Avila, Teresita D. Avila, MD, Joseph Avruch, MD, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, Steven G. Axen, M. Friedman Axler, PhD, William P. Aycock, Jessica Ayers, Robert C. Ayers Jr., PhD, Bruce D. Ayres, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, Dany Ayseur, Alison M. Azar, Max Azevedo, Azizollah Azhdam

@Daryl

I've provided this list to you before, I can provide you with several thousand more peer-reviewed Scientific Research studies that not only refute the AGW claims but show just how bad the science is behind it.

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[researchgate.net]

[nature.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[orca.cf.ac.uk]

[the-cryosphere.net]

[nature.com]

[link.springer.com]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[frontiersin.org]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[tandfonline.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[paleoecologie.umontreal.ca]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[orca.cf.ac.uk]

[sciencedirect.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[journals.sagepub.com]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[tandfonline.com]

[nature.com]

[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

[clim-past-discuss.net]

[climate.appstate.edu]

[clim-past.net]

[journals.ametsoc.org]

[newzealandecology.org]

[sciencedirect.com]

[link.springer.com]

[link.springer.com]

[sciencedirect.com]

[iopscience.iop.org]

[journals.ametsoc.org]

@Daryl

I'm really surprised that you are not a member of ResearchGate, since you hold a PhD, it contains 15+ million researchers and 118+ million peer-reviewed publications, but I'm sure you place your confidence in GOOGLE! ?

Below is a short list of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research Studies and Papers, all of which refute Anthropogenic Global Warming, now if you require more Peer-Reviewed documentation I can provide you with close to 50,000 from Scientists in almost every developed nation. While we are on the subject, can you?

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) - Archive
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)

• Richard S. Lindzen

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)

• Richard S. Lindzen

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69-82, April 1998)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)

• Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)

• Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)

• Henrik Svensmark

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)

• Willie H. Soon

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)

• David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity - (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 37, Number sp14, pp. 483–488, November 2008)

• Wibjorn Karlen

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)

• Nicola Scafetta

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)

• John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase, David Douglass

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu

A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 5-44, March 2011)

• Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner

Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)

• S. Fred Singer

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Modern Environmentalism: A Longer Term Threat to Western Civilization
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 6, pp. 1063-1072, October 2013)

• Alan Carlin

Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1-20, May 2014)

• François Gervais

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF)
(Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)

• Richard S. J. Tol

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
(Science Bulletin, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp. 122-135, January 2015)

• Christopher Monckton, Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs

• Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model
  (Science Bulletin, Volume 60, Issue 15, pp. 1378–1390, August 2015)

• Christopher Monckton, Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs

Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle (PDF)
(Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 155, pp. 129–135, April 2016)

• François Gervais

General:

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)

• Sherwood B. Idso

A surface air temperature response function for earth's atmosphere
(Boundary-Layer Meteorology, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 227-232, February 1982)

• Sherwoord B. Idso

The Role of Convective Model Choice in Calculating the Climate Impact of Doubling CO2 (PDF)
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp. 1189–1205, June 1982)

• Richard S. Lindzen, A. Y. Hou, B. F. Farrell

Long-term stabilization of earth's surface air temperature by a negative feedback mechanism
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 31, Number 3, pp. 211-219, August 1982)

• Sherwood B. Idso

CO2 and climate: Where is the water vapor feedback?
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 31, Number 4, pp. 325-329, October 1982)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Temperature limitation by evaporation in hot climates and the greenhouse effects of water vapor and carbon dioxide
(Agricultural Meteorology, Volume 27, Issues 1-2, pp. 105-109, November 1982)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature: What the Data Show
(Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 159-163, 1983)

• Sherwood B. Idso

On the magnitude of the CO2 greenhouse effect
(Applied Energy, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 227-232, 1983)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Do increases in atmospheric CO2 have a cooling effect on surface air temperature? (PDF)
(Climatological Bulletin, Volume 17, Number 2, pp. 22-26, October 1983)

• Sherwood B. Idso

• The Impetus for CO2-Induced Climatic Change: A Reply to Comments of Dr. Kevin Hamilton (PDF)
  (Climatological Bulletin, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 37-39, April 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Shortcomings of CO2-climate models raise questions about the wisdom of energy policy implications
(Applied Energy, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 53-57, 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

The climatic effect of co2: A different view
(Atmospheric Environment, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 431-434, 1984)

• Hugh W. Ellsaesser

An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Issue 1-2, pp. 1-19, March 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Case for Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 19-22, May/June 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

What if increases in atmospheric CO2 have an inverse greenhouse effect? I. Energy balance considerations related to surface albedo
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp. 399-409, July 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Is There a Greenhouse in Our Future?
(The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 59, Number 3, pp. 291-294, September 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

The CO2 Climate Controversy: An Issue of Global Concern
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp. 110-112, October 1984)

• Sherwood B. Idso

The Search for Global CO2 etc. 'Greenhouse Effects'
(Environmental Conservation, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 29-35, March 1985)

• Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)

• Sherwood B. Idso

The value of climate forecasting
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 7, Number 3, pp. 273-290, June 1985)

• Garth W. Paltridge

Global climatic trends as revealed by the recorded data
(Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 24, Number 4, pp. 745-794, November 1986)

• Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Michael C. MacCracken, John J. Walton, Stanley L. Grotch

The CO2/trace gas greenhouse effect: theory versus reality
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 55-56, March 1987)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core
(Atmospheric Environment, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp. 2341-2342, 1988)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Greenhouse warming or Little Ice Age demise: A critical problem for climatology
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 39, Number 1, pp. 54-56, March 1988)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Anthropogenic Warming in North Alaska?
(Journal of Climate, Volume 1, Issue 9, pp. 942–945, September 1988)

• Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Sappington, David E. Stooksbury

The CO2 greenhouse effect on Mars, Earth, and Venus
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 77, Issue 2-3, pp. 291-294, December 1988)

• Sherwood B. Idso

The search for CO2/trace gas greenhouse warming
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 101-102, March 1989)

• Sherwood B. Idso, John F. B. Mitchell

A tale of ten fallacies: The skeptical enquirer's view of the carbon dioxide/climate controversy
(Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Volume 47, Issues 2–4, pp. 349-371, September 1989)

• William E. Reifsnyder

An upper limit to the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 40, Number 3, pp. 171-174, September 1989)

• Sherwood B. Idso

On the stability of Earth's climate
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 39, Number 3, pp. 177-178, September 1989)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Use of time series analysis to detect climatic change
(Journal of Hydrology, Volume 111, Issues 1-4, pp. 259-279, November 1989)

• Geoff Kite

Upper ocean temperature variability in the northeast Pacific Ocean: Is it an indicator of global warming?
(Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, Volume 94, Issue C12, pp. 18175-18183, December 1989)

• Thomas C. Royer

A different view of the climatic effect of CO2 - Updated
(Atmosfera, Volume 3, Number 1, pp. 3-29, 1990)

• Hugh W. Ellsaesser

Atmospheric greenhouse effect in the earth's history
(Doklady Earth Sciences, Volume 315, Number 6, pp. 40-45, 1990)

• O. G. Sorokhtin

Is recent climate change across the United States related to rising levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases?
(Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Volume 95, Issue D10, pp. 16617–16637, January 1990)

• Marc S. Plantico, Thomas R. Karl, George Kukla, Joyce Gavin

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)

• Richard S. Lindzen

The greenhouse effect and global change: review and reappraisal
(International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 36, Issue 1-2, pp. 55-71, July 1990)

• Patrick J. Michaels

New assessments of global climate change
(Atmosfera, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 177-188, 1991)

• Kirill Ya. Kondratyev

What do climate models tell us about global warming?
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 135, Number 1, pp. 125-133, January 1991)

• Christopher Essex

Surface air temperature response to increasing global industrial productivity: A beneficial greenhouse effect?
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 44, Number 1, pp. 37-41, March 1991)

• Sherwood B. Idso, Robert C. Balling Jr.

Carbon dioxide and the fate of Earth
(Global Environmental Change, Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 178-182, June 1991)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk
(Journal of Climate, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp. 589-597, June 1991)

• A. H. Gordon

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, June 1991)

• Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Evaluating the climatic effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 via an analysis of Earth's historical temperature record
(Science of The Total Environment, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp. 239-242, July 1991)

• Sherwood B. Idso, Robert C. Balling Jr.

The Aerial Fertilization Effect of CO2 and Its Implications for Global Carbon Cycling and Maximum Greenhouse Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 72, Issue 7, pp. 962-965, July 1991)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Global warming: What does the science tell us?
(Energy, Volume 16, Issues 11-12, pp. 1331-1345, November-December 1991)

• Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz

Ancient atmospheric C02 pressures inferred from natural goethites
(Nature, Volume 355, Number 6385, pp. 342-344, January 1992)

• J. Crayton Yapp, Harald Poths

US temperature/precipitation relationships: implications for future 'greenhouse' climates
(Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Volume 58, Issues 1–2, pp. 143–147, March 1992)

• Sherwood B. Idso, Robert C. Balling Jr.

Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)

• Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal

Keeping cool on global warming
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 32-41, July 1992)

• Frederick Seitz et al.

Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August 1992)

• Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono

The DMS-cloud albedo feedback effect: Greatly underestimated?
(Climatic Change, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 429-433, August 1992)

• Sherwood B. Idso

Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)

• Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury

Anthropo-generated Climate Change in Europe
(Environmental Conservation, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 349-353, December 1992)

• Robert C. Balling Jr., Sherwood B. Idso

Climatic change in Britain: Is SO2 more significant than CO2?
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 45, Number 4, pp. 251-256, December 1992)

• Robert C. Balling Jr., Sherwood B. Idso

Simulating Past and Forecasting Future Climates
(Environmental Conservation, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 339-346, 1993)

• Reid A. Bryson

Water vapor feedback and the ice age snowline record (PDF)
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 11, Number 2-3, pp. 204-215, March 1993)

• De-Zheng Sun, Richard S. Lindzen

Distribution of Tropical Tropospheric Water Vapor (PDF)
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 12, pp. 1643-1660, June 1993)

• De-Zheng Sun, Richard S. Lindzen

A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)

• Henry R. Linden

Analysing Hydrometeorological Time Series for Evidence of Climatic Change (PDF)
(Nordic Hydrology, Volume 24, Number 2-3, pp. 135–150, August 1993)

• Geoff Kite

Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties
(Futures, Volume 25, Number 8, pp. 850-863, October 1993)

• M. E. Fernau, W. J. Makofske, D. W. South

Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1297-1310, December 1993)

• Chauncey Starr

Temperature dependence of silicate weathering in nature: How strong a negative feedback on long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and global greenhouse warming? (PDF)
(Geology, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp. 1059, December 1993)

• Michael Anthony Velbel

On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios (PDF)
(Environmental Pollution, Volume 83, Issues 1–2, pp. 125–134, 1994)

• Richard S. Lindzen

Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pp. 353-378, January 1994)

• Richard S. Lindzen

Science does not support consensus' on climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)

• Henry R. Linden

A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, April 1994)

• C. R. de Freitas

Interpreting the Global Temperature Record
(Economic Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 18-21, April 1994)

• Robert C. Balling Jr.

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)

• Zbigniew Jaworowski

Global Warming or Little Ice Age?
(Journal of Coastal Research, Issue 17, pp. 371-382, 1995)

• Theodor Landscheidt

Atmospheric greenhouse effect in the context of global climate change
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 123-151, March 1995)

• K. Ya. Kondratyev, C. Varotsos

The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere
(Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp. 415-417, March 1995)

• Jack Barrett

• Reply to comments by Sir John Houghton and Keith P. Shine on "The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the Earth's troposphere" J. Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51 (3) (1995) 415
  (Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp. 1395, July 1995)

• Jack Barrett

• Reply to Comment on "The role of carbon dioxide and water vapour in climate"
  (Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 52, Issue 11, pp. 1567-1568, October 1996)

• Jack Barrett

Predicted and observed long night and day temperature trends (PDF)
(Atmospheric Research, Volume 37, Issues 1-3, pp. 257–266, July 1995)

• Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, D. A. Gay

Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate
(GeoJournal, Volume 37, Number 4, pp. 419-430, December 1995)

• Nils-Axel Morner

Global Temperature Deviations as a Random Walk
(Journal of Climate, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 656–658, March 1996)

• Olavi Karner

Observed changes in the diurnal temperature and dewpoint cycles across the United States (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Number 19, pp. 2637–2640, September 1996)

• Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Peter D. Schwartzman

"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 3, Number 4, pp. 204-210, December 1996)

• Lee C. Gerhard

Why Carbon Dioxide Emissions Should Not Be Limited (PDF)
(Thermal Engineering, Volume 44, Number 2, pp. 85-89, 1997)

• V. V. Klimenko

How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for Global Warming Theory (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp. 1097–1106, June 1997)

• Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Time scales and trends in the central England temperature data (1659–1990): A wavelet analysis
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 11, pp. 1351-1354, June 1997)

• Sallie Baliunas, Peter Frick, Dmitry Sokoloff, Willie Soon

CO2 and Climate: a Geologist's View (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 81, Issue 1-2, pp. 173-198, July 1997)

• Harry N. A. Priem

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)

• Richard S. Lindzen

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, September 1997)

• David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 103, Issue D6, pp. 5929-5942, March 1998)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis

Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)

• Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr., Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger

Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
(Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)

• Wibjorn Karlen

Analysis of long-term European temperature records: 1751-1995 (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 3, pp. 193-200, December 1998)

• R. C. Balling Jr, R. S. Vose, Gerd-Rainer Weber

Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background
(Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)

• Raymond Sneyers

Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12, pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)

• Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Natural variability in an-ocean-atmosphere climate model
(Journal of Physics Malaysia, Volume 19, pp. 157-172, 1999)

• Eric S. Posmentier, Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)

• Nigel Calder

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)

• S. Fred Singer

Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75, June 1999)

• John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen

Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, page 152, September 1999)

• Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)

• V. V. Adamenko, K. Y. Kondratyev, C. A. Varotsos

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)

• Richard S. Courtney

Evidence Delimiting Past Global Climate Changes
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 151, September 1999)

• John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson

Observed warming in cold anticyclones (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 1–6, January 2000)

• Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling Jr., Robert E. Davis

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 18, pp. 2905–2908, September 2000)

• Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

The cause of global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 2000)

• Vincent Gray

Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
(Nature, Volume 408, Number 6813, pp. 698-701, December 2000)

• Jan Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François

Reviewing the Uncertainties in Climate Change Science
(Area, Volume 32, Number 4, pp. 357-368, December 2000)

• Greg O'Hare

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186, January 2001)

• John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, William B. Norris

Vertical correlations of water vapor in GCMs (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 259–262, January 2001)

• De-Zheng Sun, Curt Covey, Richard S. Lindzen

Sources of global warming in upper ocean temperature during El Nino
(Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, Volume 106, Issue C3, pp. 4349-4367, March 2001)

• Warren B. White et al.

Does CO2 really drive global warming? (PDF)
(Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp. 44-46, May 2001)

• Robert H. Essenhigh

A sceptical view of climate change and water resources planning
(Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp. 221-226, July 2001)

• Geoff Kite

Is the enhancement of global warming important?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 335-341, July 2001)

• M. C. R. Symons, Jack Barrett

Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 45–53, July 2001)

• Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis

Is the additional greenhouse effect already evident in the current climate?
(Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Volume 371, Number 6, pp. 791-797, November 2001)

• E. Raschke

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 259–275, November 2001)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

• Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)
  (Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 187–188, September 2002)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

• Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003) (PDF)
  (Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 93–94, June 2003)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 8, April 2002)

• Richard S. Lindzen

Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April 2002)

• Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

When Was The Hottest Summer? A State Climatologist Struggles for an Answer
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp. 723-734, May 2002)

• John R. Christy

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)

• C. R. de Freitas

Reconciling observations of global temperature change (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp. 24-1, June 2002)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis

Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 2, July 2002)

• R. B. Govindan et al.

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)

• S. Fred Singer

On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue D20, October 2002)

• Olavi Karner

A multifractal point of view on climatological evolution
(La Houille Blanche, Number 8, pp. 31-33, December 2002)

• P. Hubert et al.

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, Volume 2, pp. 3-11, February 2003)

• A. J. Boucot et al.

Global Warming: Are We Confusing Cause and Effect?
(Energy Sources, Volume 25, Number 4, pp. 357-370, April 2003)

• Leonid F. Khilyuk

Climate Change - A Natural Hazard (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)

• William Kininmonth

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)

• Marcel Leroux

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 327-350, May 2003)

• Theodor Landscheidt

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003)

• Hans Jelbring

Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 15-18, June 2003)

• David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, David A. Belsley

Global Warming (PDF)
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 448-455, September 2003)

• Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

On the Coherence between Dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 773-782, November 2003)

• L. B. Klyashtorin, A. A. Lyubushin

Likelihood of Rapidly Increasing Surface Temperatures Unaccompanied by Strong Warming in the Free Troposphere (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 25, Number 3, pp. 185-190, January 2004)

• T. N. Chase, Roger A. Pielke Sr., B. Herman, X. Zeng

Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)

• Craig Loehle

Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)

• Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 5, March 2004)

• A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)

• Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

• Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
  (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)

• Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

• A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
  (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)

• Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 13, July 2004)

• David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 13, July 2004)

• David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503, July 2004)

• K. Y. Kondratyev

Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth's Climate System (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 65, Number 1-2, pp. 11-38, July 2004)

• Jose A. Rial et al.

Water in the Atmosphere (PDF)
(Journal of Chemical Education, Volume 81, Issue 8, pp. 1229, August 2004)

• Joel M. Kauffman

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics (PDF)
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)

• Lee C. Gerhard

• Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
  (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)

• Lee C. Gerhard

Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report (PDF)
(Environmental Geology, Volume 46, Issue 6-7, pp. 970-979, October 2004)

• L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126, January 2005)

• Arthur Rorsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes

Iceland as a heat island (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 3, February 2005)

• David H. Douglass, V. Patel, Robert S. Knox

• Reply to comments by H. Bjornsson et al. on "Iceland as a heat island" (PDF)
  (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 24, December 2005)

• David H. Douglass, V. Patel, Robert S. Knox

Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 5, March 2005)

• David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

• Reply to comment by A. Robock on "Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo" (PDF)
  (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 20, October 2005)

• David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

• Reply to comment by T. M. L. Wigley et al. on "Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo" (PDF)
  (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 20, October 2005)

• David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Issue 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)

• Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)

• Arthur Rorsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes

Discussions on Climate Change as Presented in Nature, 2004
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 335-348, March 2005)

• Jack Barrett

Expected halt in the current global warming trend?
(Renewable Energy, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp. 743–752, April 2005)

• Ernest C. Njau

Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)

• Olavi Karner

The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (PDF)
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)

• Madhav L. Khandekar, T. S. Murty, P. Chittibabu

Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 6, pp. 1037-1045, November 2005)

• Jack Barrett

Nature's style: Naturally trendy (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 23, December 2005)

• Timothy A. Cohn, Harry F. Lins

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF)
(Social Studies of Science, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 895-922, December 2005)

• Myanna Lahsen

Global climate changes: Antidogmatron (PDF)
(Geographica Pannonica, Volume 10, pp. 9-13, 2006)

• Milan Radovanovic, Mirceta Vemic, Ivan Popovic

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 4, February 2006)

• John R. Christy, William B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

• Reply to Comments on "Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?"
  (Journal of Climate, Volume 20, Issue 7, September 2007)

• John R. Christy, William B. Norris, K. Gallo

Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S?S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions
(Energy Fuels, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp. 1057-1067, May 2006)

• Robert H. Essenhigh

On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607, July 2006)

• Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, pp. 899-910, August 2006)

• L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

• Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of "On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?" by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
  (Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)

• L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)

• H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)

• Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)

• Vincent Gray

Thermocline flux exchange during the Pinatubo event (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 19, October 2006)

• D. H. Douglass, R. S. Knox, B. D. Pearson, A. Clark Jr

Climate Change Reexamined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)

• Joel M. Kauffman

Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)

• Vincent Courtillot et al.

• Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
  (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)

• Vincent Courtillot et al.

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years (PDF)
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January 2007)

• Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, January-March 2007)

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)

• Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282, March 2007)

• Ernst-Georg Beck

• Comments on "180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods" (PDF)
  (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)

• Ernst-Georg Beck

Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, pp. 3-17, March 2007)

• Lance Endersbee

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)

• Willie H. Soon

Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)

• David Bellamy, Jack Barrett

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)

• Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)

• David C. Archibald

On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 260-268, September 2007)

• Olavi Karner

Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature (PDF)
(Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 13, pp. 2211–2222, October 2007)

• Ernest C. Njau

Evolution of the Earth's Global Climate
(Energy Sources, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp. 1-19, November 2007)

• O. G. Sorokhtin, G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)

• David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

• Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
  (Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)

• David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

• An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
  (Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)

• Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)

• Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)

• Petr Chylek et al.

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)

• Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)

• Richard S. Lindzen

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)

• Douglas J. Keenan

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)

• Olavi Karner

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (PDF)
(Energy Sources, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)

• G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic (PDF)
(Science, Volume 319, Number 5864, pp. 800-803, February 2008)

• M. Susan Lozier et al.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)

• Klaus-Martin Schulte

Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)

• Patrick J. Michaels

Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. 470-479, March 2008)

• Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey

Global Climate Change
(Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp. 448-455, April 2008)

• R. H. Hammerle et al.

An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF)
(Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008)

• John Stubbles

Human population and carbon dioxide
(Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp. 2761-2764, July 2008)

• William M. Schaffer

On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 671-684, August 2008)

• D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis et al.

Knock, Knock: Where Is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-caused Global Warming? (PDF)
(Economic Analysis and Policy, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp. 177-202, September 2008)

• Robert M. Carter

• Reply to the Comment of Robert E.T. Ward by Robert M. Carter (PDF)
  (Economic Analysis and Policy, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp. 145-146, September 2010)

• Robert M. Carter

Reconsideration of Climate Change from the Viewpoints of Greenhouse Gas Types and Time Scale
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 691-705, September 2008)

• Ryunosuke Kikuchi

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)

• Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity
(Ambio, Volume 37, Number sp14, pp. 483–488, November 2008)

• Wibjorn Karlen

Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)

• Fred Goldberg

Computer Study of Cluster Mechanism of Anti-greenhouse Effect
(International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. 31-38, Winter 2009)

• A. Galashev

Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)

• Adrian K. Kerton

Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)

• Craig Loehle

Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 105-121, January 2009)

• Tom Quirk

Earth's Temperature / CO2 Equilibrium Prior to 1850
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 191-196, January 2009)

• Martin D. Cropp

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 275-364, January 2009)

• Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

• Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris H0-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" (PDF)
  (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. 1333-1359, April 2010)

• Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences (PDF)
(Environment International, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. 390-401, February 2009)

• Georgios A. Florides, Paul Christodoulides

Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Issue 2-3, pp. 333-342, February 2009)

• G. P. Compo, P. D. Sardeshmukh

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Issue 3-4, pp. 351-359, February 2009)

• Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook

• Science Debates Must Continue
  (Energy & Environment, Volume 23, Number 8, pp. 1483-1488, December 2012)

• Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp. 2773–2784, April 2009)

• Robert H. Essenhigh

Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)

• J. Barkans, D. Zalostiba

Climate Change -- What Does the Research Mean?
(Chemical Engineering Progress. Volume 105, Number 6, pp. 20-25, June 2009)

• Michael J. Economides, Xie Xina

Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes
(Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp. 3342–335, June 2009)

• John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Richard T. McNider

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 13, July 2009)

• Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)

• John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

• Correction to "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"
  (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)

• John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

• Response to "Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)
  (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)

• John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

• Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
  (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)

• David R. B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

Ocean heat content and Earth's radiation imbalance (PDF)
(Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, pp. 3296-3300, August 2009)

• David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 16, August 2009)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

• On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications (PDF)
  (Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2010)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 595-596, August 2009)

• David R. B. Stockwell

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
(Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp. 1207-1213, September 2009)

• G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. F. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

A Surfeit of Cycles (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 6, pp. 985-996, October 2009)

• William M. Schaffer

Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making (PDF)
(International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp. 826-832, October-December 2009)

• Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 21, November 2009)

• Wolfgang Knorr

On the Confusion of Planck Feedback Parameters
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1057-1066, November 2009)

• Kyoji Kimoto

Late 20th Century Warmed Within Natural Limits: Evidence from Gaussian Distributions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1075-1085, November 2009)

• Peter Jelffs

Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, November 2009)

• Craig Loehle

Gravitation and Gas Laws: An Alternative Approach to Climatology
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1141-1147, November 2009)

• Wolfgang Brune

On the Increased Rate of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation 1980-2008
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1149-1154, November 2009)

• Jarl R. Ahlbeck

Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 463, Number 7280, pp. 527-530, January 2010)

• David C. Frank et al.

Origin of Earth's Ice Ages
(Energy Sources, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 101-107, January 2010)

• O. G. Sorokhtin, G. V. Chilingar, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data (PDF)
(Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 35, Number 3-4, pp. 149-175, January 2010)

• Ross McKitrick, Nicolas Nierenberg

Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with Electrical Circuit Analogy (PDF)
(Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications, Volume 2, Number 3, pp. 133-138, March 2010)

• Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Alexander I. Bogoyavlenskii, Sergey I. Khankov, Yevgeniy V. Lapovok

No climate paradox under the faint early Sun
(Nature, Volume 464, Number 7287, pp. 744-747, April 2010)

• Minik T. Rosing et al.

• Rosing, Bird, Sleep & Bjerrum reply
  (Nature, Volume 474, Number 7349, pp. E1, June 2011)

• Minik T. Rosing et al.

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp. 2453–2464, May 2010)

• Stephen E. Schwartz et al.

What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2? (PDF)
(Journal of Cosmology, Volume 8, pp. 1846-1862, June 2010)

• Qing-Bin Lu

Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation (PDF)
(Statistics, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 1–18, July 2010)

• Ross McKitrick

How would global-mean temperature change in the 21st century? (PDF)
(Chinese Science Bulletin, Volume 55, Number 19, pp. 1963-1967, July 2010)

• WeiHong Qian et al.

On the Meaning of Feedback Parameter, Transient Climate Response, and the Greenhouse Effect: Basic Considerations and the Discussion of Uncertainties (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 137-159, July 2010)

• Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

• Reply to the "Comments on the Paper 'On the Meaning of Feedback Parameter, Transient Climate Response, and the Greenhouse Effect: Basic Considerations and the Discussion of Uncertainties' by Rainer Link and Horst-Joachim Lüdecke" (PDF)
  (Submitted to The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2011)

• Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

Twentieth Century Sources of Methane in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 3, pp. 251-266, July 2010)

• Tom Quirk

El Nino–Southern Oscillation: Magnitudes and asymmetry (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Volume 115, Issue D15, August 2010)

• David H. Douglass

Introductory paper on paradigm shift Should we change emphasis in greenhouse-effect research?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 165-169, August 2010)

• Arthur Rorsch

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)

• Roy Clark

Note on the Miskolczi theory
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 277-292, August 2010)

• Noor van Andel

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 115, Issue D16, August 2010)

• Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Tropical rainstorm feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 217-224, August 2010)

• Noor van Andel

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)

• William Kininmonth

The stabilising effect of the oceans on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 237-240, August 2010)

• Dick Thoenes

The stable stationary value of the earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 243-262, August 2010)

• Ferenc M. Miskolczi

The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapour concentration in the troposphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 263-275, August 2010)

• William C. Gilbert

A stable boundary layer perspective on global temperature trends
(IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 1-14, September 2010)

• Richard T. McNider, John R. Christy, A. Biazar

Multidecadal Tendencies in ENSO and Global Temperatures Related to Multidecadal Oscillations (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 5, pp. 437-460, September 2010)

• Joseph D'Aleo, Don Easterbrook

Topology of Earth’s climate indices and phase-locked states (PDF)
(Physics Letters A, Volume 374, Issue 40, pp. 4164-4168, September 2010)

• David H. Douglass

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)

• John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase, David Douglass

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp. 1094-111, October 2010)

• G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis

A Materials Scientist Ponders Global Warming/Cooling
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 6, pp. 611-632, October 2010)

• Anthony Kelly

Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series (PDF)
(Atmospheric Science Letters, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp. 270–277, October/December 2010)

• Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Chad Herman

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Recent Energy Balance of Earth
(International Journal of Geoscience, Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 99-101, November 2010)

• Robert S. Knox, David H. Douglass

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
(International Journal of Geosciences, Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 102-112, November 2010)

• Paulo Cesar Soares

External Forces Acting on the Earth's Climate: An Approach to Understanding the Complexity of Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 8, pp. 953-968, December 2010)

• Ryunosuke Kikuchi

On some achievements and major problems in mathematical modeling of climatic characteristics of the Ocean (critical analysis)
(Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp. 668-676, December 2010)

• A. S. Sarkisyan

Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 8, pp. 969-989, December 2010)

• Patrick Frank

Spectral Analysis of the Svalbard Temperature Record 1912–2010
(Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2011, pp. 1-14, 2011)

• Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl

Second thoughts on global warming
(Kybernetes, Volume 40, Issue 1/2, pp. 327-329, 2011)

• Alex M. Andrew

Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 41-48, March 2011)

• Norman R. Paterson

The 158-Year Climate Experiment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 3, pp. 219-232, April 2011)

• Joseph F. Boston

The Methane Misconceptions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 3, pp. 233-240, April 2011)

• Wilson Flood

Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)

• S. Fred Singer

Imposed and Neglected Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 407-424, June 2011)

• Patrick Frank

Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 5, pp. 74-86, July 2011)

• Craig Loehle, Nicola Scafetta

• Supplementary Material (PDF)
  (The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 5, July 2011)

• Craig Loehle, Nicola Scafetta

Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
(Energy Sources, Volume 33, Issue 21, pp. 1985-1992, August 2011)

• Xiaobing Zhaoa

Long-Term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 6, pp. 723-745, August 2011)

• Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 3, Issue 8, pp. 1603-1613, August 2011)

• Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 38, Number 15, August 2011)

• Qiang Fu et al.

A Parameterised Carbon Feedback Model for the Calculation of Global Warming from Attainable Fossil Fuel Emissions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 7, pp. 859-876, October 2011)

• Willem P. Nel

Global warming, human-induced carbon emissions, and their uncertainties (PDF)
(Science China Earth Sciences, Volume 54, Number 10, pp. 1458-1468, October 2011)

• JingYun Fang et al.

How Natural is the Recent Centennial Warming? An Analysis of 2249 Surface Temperature Records (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics C, Volume: 22, Issue 10, pp. 1139-1159, October 2011)

• Horst-Joachim Ludecke et al.

Why is global warming slowing down?
(Doklady Earth Sciences, Volume 440, Issue 2, pp. 1419-1422, October 2011)

• V. V. Klimenko

Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 79, Issues 1–2, pp. 145–156, October–November 2011)

• Ole Humlum et al.

Separation of a Signal of Interest from a Seasonal Effect in Geophysical Data: I. El Nino/La Nina Phenomenon (PDF)
(International Journal of Geosciences, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp. 414-419, November 2011)

• David H. Douglass

Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 3, Number 12, pp. 971-998, December 2011)

• Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

Temperature Estimates from Models and Observations
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 8, pp. 1059-1068, December 2011)

• Philip Symmons

The potential peatland extent and carbon sink in Sweden, as related to the Peatland / Ice Age Hypothesis (PDF)
(Mires and Peat, Volume 10, Article 8, 2012)

• L. G. Franzen et al.

Short Term Global DT Prediction Using (60-70)-Years Periodicity
(Energy & Environment, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 75-86, January 2012)

• Alexey A. Lyubushin, Leonid B. Klyashtorin

Climate Change: Sources of Warming in the Late 20th Century
(Energy & Environment, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 95-104, January 2012)

• Gerald E. Marsh

Climate stability and sensitivity in some simple conceptual models
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 38, Issue 3-4, pp. 455-473, February 2012)

• J. Ray Bates

Global cloud height fluctuations measured by MISR on Terra from 2000 to 2010
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 3, February 2012)

• Roger Davies, Matthew Molloy

Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance II. Relation To Climate Shifts (PDF)
(Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issues 12–13, pp. 1085-1178, February 2012)

• David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

• Reply to "Comment on 'Ocean heat content and Earth?s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts'" by Nuccitelli et al. (PDF)
  (Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issues 47–48, pp. 3673–3675, November 2012)
  David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 38, Issue 5-6, pp. 929-949, March 2012)

• Marcia Glaze Wyatt et al.

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF)
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)

• Richard S. Lindzen

On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 25 Issue 18, pp. 6123-6135, September 2012)

• W. G. Large, S. G. Yeager

Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide "Control Knob"
(The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, pp. 1-12, May 2012)

• Timothy Curtin

Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)
(The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 127, Number 5, pp. 1-15, May 2012)

• Richard S. Lindzen

The Roles of Greenhouse Gases in Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 23, Number 5, pp. 781-800, July 2012)

• Antero V. E. Ollila

The Night Time Radiative Transport Between the Earth's Surface, Its Atmosphere, and Free Space (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 23, Number 5, pp. 819-832, July 2012)

• Martin Hertzberg

The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 6, pp. 111-116, August 2012)

• G. Wendler et al.

Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming (PDF)
(Earth System Dynamics, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 97-279, November 2012)

• M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, N. Paldor

• Reply to Hendry and Pretis (PDF)
  (Earth System Dynamics, Volume 4, Discussion C118, March 2013)

• M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, N. Paldor

Evaluating explanatory models of the spatial pattern of surface climate trends using model selection and bayesian averaging methods (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 39, Issue 12, pp. 2867-2882, December 2012)

• Ross McKitrick, Lise Tole

Problems of climate as a problem of optics
(Journal of Optical Technology, Volume 80, Issue 11, pp. 717-721, 2013)

• S. V. Avakyan

Update of the Chronology of Natural Signals in the Near-Surface Mean Global Temperature Record and the Southern Oscillation Index (PDF)
(International Journal of Geosciences, Volume 4, Number 1A, pp. 234-239, January 2013)

• Chris R. de Freitas, John D. McLean

Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records (PDF)
(Climate of the Past, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 447-452, February 2013)

• H.-J. Ludecke, A. Hempelmann, C. O. Weiss

On the Present Halting of Global Warming
(Climate, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 4-11, June 2013)

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu

A Dynamic, Coupled Thermal Reservoir Approach to Atmospheric Energy Transfer Part I: Concepts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 319-340, June 2013)

• Roy Clark

A Dynamic, Coupled Thermal Reservoir Approach to Atmospheric Energy Transfer Part II: Applications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 341-360, June 2013)

• Roy Clark

Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide: Geological Perspective
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 361-380, June 2013)

• Harry N. A. Priem

Meteosat Derived Planetary Temperature Trend 1982-2006
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 381-396, June 2013)

• Andries Rosema, Steven Foppes, Joost van der Woerd

Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of General Circulation Models (GCMs)
(Energy & Environment, V

@Daryl

That's perhaps the best and most knee-slapping joke I've seen, you post a graph that I can almost guarantee you took from a quick Google search and you stand upon that as evidence...I bet you can find a similar graph to prove the existence of Big Foot.

To back up the facade of that graph you must provide the actual research that supports the claim, I dare say that you are incapable of providing the details behind it. You talk about credibility yet, to date, your rebuttals are completely void of evidence of such credibility. You offer nothing but a wearisome repetitive self-enforcing MEME,

This far you have ignored the vast amount of Peer-reviewed research, that fact is evident in the speed at which you commented and the fact that your opinions are of a very specific insular nature. You have failed to provide any rebuttals that rise above impotency. You have said that you've not studied climate science to any extensive degree and that fact definitely is glaringly evident.

So your lastest insular reaction is nothing more than an excuse to dismiss any evidence that contradicts the safety you neatly packaged in a belief-system that, as you have proven, is immune from Scientific criticism, sorry but that is not the definition of Science.

As I've said the climate itself is already debunking the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. What I find extremely disconcerting is that you place your faith in what you have already agreed is a hypothetical, unlike you, if I as am confronted with actual evidence of observational research that proves the AGW hypothesis is correct then I would research that evidence and, upon examination, change my opinion. The difference is that my opinions are not based on an almost religious devotion to a hypothesis as it's clearly evident for everyone to see on this thread.

READ IT DOES A MIND GOOD.... especially if that mind has an insular proclivity as yours apparently does.

@Daryl

After 522 Million years, there is a, based on AGW theory, suddenly, within a span of a mere 169 years since the beginning of the industrial age, there is now a correlation between temperatures and the level of CO2, where none existed before. That's an interesting concept however, it's far from either observable or Scientific data and research

So how much global warming can be attributed to man-made emissions of CO2, having a life-cycles in the atmosphere of approximately 5 years, and other man-made traces gases? According to AGW science all or most modern warning is heaved onto the shoulders of human activities.

So what happens when you analyze the actual relationship between historic temperatures and Atmospheric CO2 utilizing the most comprehensive assembly of empirical data-bases available? Facts appear that are irrefutable that the two variables, CO2 as correlating to Temperatures, there is an apparent dissociation and almost an antiphasic relationship between the two. For when you look at the peak concentration of CO2 at about 415 million years ago, that concentration is during a drop in temperatures to about 445 million years. More interesting is that fact that at approximately 285 million years ago there is yet another minor peak in CO2 concentration, yet an even deeper drop in temperatures, but the most prominent contrast can be seen at 200 million years ago when CO2 reached an extraordinary level and yet temperatures dropped and have continued to drop with only minor cyclical warmings.

It's therefore, it's not just difficult to qualitatively define a relationship in the fluctuations of the concentration of Atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, it's impossible; in fact there appears to be a negative correlation between CO2 concentration and temperatures. Now, if CO2 has never, in the last 522 million years, demonstrated that it caused temperature change in the ancient climate of the Earth, then why are we being told by a cadre of “scientists” that the laws governing physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc., have suddenly changed? Oh they say it's man-made CO2 emissions, that's the difference, but for millions of years volcanic emissions eject the same CO2 with the same isotope as man-made CO2. if therefore, there is an absence of correlation then there is an absence of causality.

This far, I've not read a single AGW scientist that's been able to refute the past or explain how everything known about the climate just changed suddenly in a miniscule amount of geological time.

@Daryl you're being obtuse just for the sake of arguing. You say it's so just because you read something somewhere. There is no such thing as settled science. All of science is, or should be, open to new evidence being presented or a review of the analysis. People scared of different outcomes say things like settled science.

@Daryl

So let me ask, just which version of the AGW Hypothesis do you believe in? I mean since you are such a strong advocate of it surely you must know which one of the several Hypothesis’ you are advocating? ?

@Daryl

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN A SCIENCE THEORY IS BASED ON THE WRONG PREMISE, REMEMBER THIS AGW PREDICTION FROM 2000 BY LEAD AGW RESEARCHER DAVID VINER?

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist on Anthropogenic Global. Warming at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia:

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is. Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries … Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community”

@Daryl

Michael Mann, one of the father's of the AGW movement, was sent this email, they have known and still know that CO2 was not the cause of the warming cycle, they also know that warming was and is regional why there is no consistent cyclical pattern of warning. The NASA supervisor over James Hansen, another father of the movement, said he should have been fired for exposing a theory that had no proof of experimental evidence. Yet, like a snowball it kept getting bigger and bigger. You really should read the 6000 leaked emails and the transcript of the Court case against Michael Mann, these are the caliber of scientists you have placed your trust in.

@Daryl

Let's speak about credibility’ shall we? What evidence have you provided that you think it's credible? Your continual use of a statistic that has been proven absolutely false by subsequent surveys and studies, do you think that promotes your credibility? I've read many of the peer-reviewed studies and research on the AGW side of the debate, can you say the same? If you have not then does that fact lend to your credibility or against that credibility? I've provided you when some of the top scientific minds in the world and links to their work, these include NASA, NOAA, and University research scientists and yet you have merely continued to parrot the same feeble rebuttal in dreary repetition, do you really think that gives you any degree of credence. How many Scientists can you present who are working as postdoctoral researchers in the broad field of Earth and Atmospheric Science, including Climatology, can you name and provide their peer-reviewed research, because thus far I've not seen you produce many, so we are just to take your word that your position is credible?

I ask if your position can be considered credible when you've not been able to cite a single peer-reviewed study or, for that matter a list of scientists who supposedly supports the AGW position, even some of the 52 or so scientists in the IPCC have questioned the position taken by the IPCC. So, if your statistical 98% of all scientists, of whatever disciple, then based on the global population there should be an extremely vast pool of scientists that you could cite since there are approximately 7,000,000 scientists world-wide so you claim, based on that 98% MEME you continuously spout out as “proof” then you should logically be about to prove to me that 6,860,000 scientists agree with global warming, now that would lend credibility to your faith, but you can't because of the simple reason I've stated previously, that your sacred 98% MEME is a statistical impossibility, and the consensus you lay claim to as a defense for you faith is thus also statistically impossible. Even on its surface, it completely defies logic as well as numbers, but keep reading the writings of your High Priest John Cook at Skeptical Science, the fact that you cite him as an expert or his survey as truth proves just the degree of credibility you possess.

So, to add to the strength of your credibility you place your faith in men who have proven to be little more that Climate Fakirs, peddling their manipulated data, their predetermined climate models that have not only failed to predict an actual climate event is zero. So you lady cousin to the credibility of men like Michael Mann, a man who almost single handedly created the current pseudoscience of global warming, him and James Hansen. Mann’s Hockey Stick was proven absolutely false because he conventionally ignored the Warming Periods in the recent past such as the Medieval Warming, in fact Mann and others discussed how to make those periods disappear from the climate record. Yeah, that's the kind of credible scientists you trust.

I worked really love for you to at least make an attempt at a real and substantive rebuttal.

For years now, the IPCC and it's leading scientific representatives of the IPCC, have true to convince people and politicians fun arrive the world that the pre-industrial temperature history was relatively stable and that the temperature of the 20th Century was something extraordinary, highly unusual and therefore, a very present and future danger. It was only until just a few years ago that the Hockey Stick graph of Michael Mann was repudiated, it was officially dropped from the IPCC somewhere around 2013, but fun the tune it was introduced, it was already known to be false, as far back as 1995, yet it was used as a political, not scientific tool. Even Michael Mann, in a recent Court case, has repudiated his own graph.

Mann's Hockey Stick began as a doctoral thesis, but thankfully the are real scientists who have retained their ethics. After, his thesis and graph were debunked as a scientific scandal and fabrication, which is really all the AGW science consist of, it still amazes me and it difficult to even fathom how so many scientists, the ones you believe and proponents of the AGW theory are still acting as though they are experts in the field of climate.

One of the primary evidence that claimed was that the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming and obviously the Roman Warming were all localized anomalies. Mann simply removed the previous Warming Periods. That is proven in his emails and recent testimony. But you must ignore that because otherwise, the credibility in your own mind with come into question.

Mann and Hansen, asking with all the rest, already knew that the Warming Periods were in fact global, as far back as 1995 in the Geophysical Research Journal, and yet they purposefully have the opposite scientific impression. Yep, very credible.

Rather than admit errors, these AGW scientific charlatans, camouflaged the error and used it as a basis for furthering the political agenda of the IPCC.

Now once the correct data was entered into Michael Mann’s own erroneous and manipulated graph, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing, not one iota of extraordinary warming evidence in the 20th Century. The entire fake AGW science has fallen completely apart. That's why Scientists who once have some credence to the theory are abandoning it and, thankfully, returning to real and observable science. See below, you'll also see one of Mann's emails explaining how manipulation of data.

So if you really want to talk about credibility, them please provide some information the form of actual research that is explicit. So far, you're provided none, you just fall back on the utter meaningless and completely debunked 98% MEME as though that is remotely credible.

@Daryl

Famous scientist, Thomas Huxley had it right: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic” Thomas Huxley

Since it is physically impossible to conduct a controlled experiment on the climate of the Earth, the is no physical way to have a control planet, there is only one way to test the hypothesis of CAGW and that is by the use of the models they employ and the results of their model predictions. If the CAGW hypothesis is indeed valid then the models should produce a predictive skill between the models and observable evidence. While the first models were put into service in 1971 to predict Sea Ice, the general climate models were introduced in the early 80s and have reproduce no skill whatsoever in predictably, all have failed utterly. The interesting point is that the entire CAGW Hypothesis seems to promote and advance these failed predictive models as correct therefore, they must assume that observational evidence is wrong.In other words, the actual variations in the real climate must be incorrect because such evidence doesn't agree with their models, I see no other viable explanation for such a scientific inconsistency.

Conclusion is that the entire CAGW is nullified if it can produce zero predictive skill set it's models and it has failed to do so. It does not follow the scientific method, the science of CAGW has been built in fraud and data manipulation and yet after 30 years the hypothesis still can not reproduce historical accurate models nor predictive models. It's fake science. One day, in not too-distant in the future, those who defended this charsde of science will be forced to admit just how wrong and utterly blinded they really were.

@Daryl Although I am happy to reconsider my opinion on the matter of climate change, as believing either way will in no way affect me, your second assertion regarding who inhabits the sides of this debate is incorrect. First, the "97-98% consensus" discussion is based on two conjunctive studies (the Cook et al. studies), which have significant methodological flaws. In correcting these flaws, the consensus among the addressed scientific community is closer to 30%, with roughly 25% dissenting and the preponderance failing to make any truth statements as to the question of causality.

I will admit it is likely that a considerable percentage of scientists that specialize in climate science agree that climate variability is anthropogenic in nature. This being said, the general punditry is split on their opinion on the matter. The opposition is mostly led by geologists, astro- and nuclear physicists, and climate engineers whose own bodies of work suggest other reasonable and similarly well-studied causal potentialities (although I am unfamiliar with their measurements of statistical significance, so you have my attention there).

The most significant arguments both for and against either side of this debate, however, are:

1. Scientific study of contribution and consequence relative to changes in the extremely complex "air-ocean-land-forest system" which we inhabit comes with a significant level of uncertainty as to why the changes are occurring and what the effects will be relative to human survival. This uncertainty is fundamentally unchanged by this recent revelation in significance. We know that humanity has survived and even thrived through both warming (Holocene) and cooling (Pleistocene) cycles, and we have nothing but speculation as to what will occur within the greater creation in this regard - i.e., Miami flooding due to rising ocean levels is pure conjecture on the part of the punditry, rather than more reasonably incentivized minds.

2. As Dr. Vernon Smith said several years ago, "[Climate change] is happening, and we should prepare for it, but stopping it is way beyond current technology, which is why [Copenhagen Consensus] plugged for energy saving and CO2 sequestration research with over a dozen worldwide problems easily besting climate given the budget we worked with." In other words, there are more pressing problems than those which humanity is currently incapable of solving. This issue should be studied, but human betterment and efforts to reduce poverty through global market development should not be restricted or abandoned in lieu of a problem which we do not currently have the ability to address.

And please don't bother to suggest that any governing entity (US, UN, etc.) would be capable of handling a sudden jump in technological advancement which would allow the world to address this concern. There is more than enough evidence to show that these organizations actually hinder innovative advancement rather than help it. They are, by nature, a burden rather than a boon.

@Daryl

I'll start by busting the 98% [actually 97.4%] concensus myth that you have been adeptly spoon-fed fed to believe. Have you ever looked into the origins and the actual facts behin that myth? Obviously not.

What I first found interesting is this claim, repeatedly made by politicians and activists that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, is has been a very powerful tool in the Anthropogenic Global Warming camp, it conveniently lends substantial credence to the entire theory and has been effectively used as a baseball bat against anyone who attempts to say otherwise. It has been the most effective sales tool for the theory and subsequent political implementation of the entire global warming agenda and it's most convenient target CO2. Why CO2?

So, the most emotionally charged and extremely effective MEME of "97.4% of scientists agree on man-made global warming" came about when a physics student, John Cook, in Australia did a survey, it was a two-question, online questionnaire that was sent to exactly 10,257 Earth Scientists, of whom 3,146 actually responded and 96.2% of those respondents were from North America, with 6.2% being Canadian. The entire 90% of America Scientists responding came exclusively from none other than California. John Cook then selected 77 of those 3,146 respondents and declared them experts in the field of climate science. So, 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus of man-made global warming". That's where the 97 per cent comes from. That's the sole basis for the reality of so-called scientific consensus that has been politically exploited to create the entire hysteria about global warming, a term that they had to change because temperatures began to drop globally about 18 years ago and they could not explain it with the term global warming.

In 1988, Michael Mann testified before Congress with his graph that was dubed the Hockey Stick, showing a drastic increase in temperatures since the 1950s, that was perhaps the start of the entire global warming charade of research on the subject, it was swallowed by politicians and the IPCC was founded. Turns out that Mann's scientific method was completely fake, with massive ommissions of actual data and yet it was his research that pretty much started it all. Those omissions were discovered back in 2007 I believe, but from 1988 until present, climate science, at least government sponsored science, mainly climate modeling has been based on the Mann model of the hocky-stick. When a premise or theory is incorrect and the data you chose to use is based solely on that premise the results of such research them becomes provable but not falsifiable as demanded by the scientific method followed by scientists since Sir Issac Newton.

Now the implications that some scientists claim the Earth hasn't been this warm in human history is pretty well documented, they state that CO2 levels haven't been this high in over 800,000 years and based on their theory it hasn't been this warm before either. That is why they have made the claim that the last few warning periods were localized and not global, they are now back-tracking on that assertion be more evidence is being discovered refuting the localized warning theory.

You have been well taught in the "settled-science" meme but I can get you've not looked pass that meme to find out just how many scientists have published peer-reviewed papers that totally contradict the entire assumption that the science is settled. In the last three months over 100 climate scientists have published 40 papers that refute the popular AGW science. Last year there were over 500 papers published written by hundreds of highly esteemed scientists. But if you don't actually research the issue you would believe just what you believe.

There was a very good reason why they were forced to change the name from Global Warming to the very inclusive name of Climate Change... Think about it.

@Daryl Here is a partial list from Wikipedia of scientists who are climate change skeptics:
David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]

@Daryl You are, of course, correct. The consensus argument is not worth discussing, it bears too much resemblance to a genetic fallacy from either side, anyway. My apologies for bringing it up.

I also agree with your comment, "there is no way to know if the climate situation isn't worse than the experts claim it is now." Thus my comments regarding uncertainty in complex systems analysis. This being the case, I will say that uncertainty goes both ways - there is also no way to know if the climate situation isn't better than the experts claim, as well. Because of this, we cannot make any reasonable judgement as to how to fix it, and how much to do. What if, for the sake of argument, we actually did have the technology to address this change and then we did too much. There would be no way of knowing until the world began swinging perilously in the other direction (think: dramatic shrinkage of global tree and foliage density). At this point, Dr. Smith's words become all the more relevant. There is neither the current technological capability to change what is happening, nor a clarity of understanding of the situation that produces an answer that we can be sure will not fail or destroy the earth in some other manner.

I do want to make sure that it is understood, based in professional experience and personal confidences (anecdotal, as it is) - nothing is going to be done, nothing at all. Nothing is planned, and nothing is agreed upon. There is no global leadership consensus, nor consensus among the varied populations. China and Russia will not even come to the table on this, and they produce far more of the varied types of "causal" pollution than most every other country on the planet. Neither the US nor Europe can (or will) do anything to accomplish any goal in this regard on the global scale even if we returned to the ideals of imperialism and attempted to forcibly colonize the rest of the world in an effort to establish a global operational consensus.

Really for those who truly believe this will end the world, or kill millions, maybe billions - the work being done by Elon Musk and Richard Branson is the only hope at all. But as much as I find it difficult to accept the climate change "facts," I am all for space travel and colonization. No matter how much of a crotchety academic I become, that is still the coolest possible outcome of which I can imagine.

@Daryl

Wow! so many of them are so unimpressive!

@Daryl
Are you aware that the global population of Termites produce 100 times the amount of CO2 and Methane than all the cow farts or airplanes or human fossil fuel burning? Who you gonna call Terminix?

When you start with a bad premise for a theory you always end up with bad answers to that theory. Bad answers lead to very Bad policy.

Let's once again look at observational evidence that compelling contradicts the theory of global warming and then you must reconcile that evidence with the theory.

There is an Arctic Island called Zhokhov in the Siberian Arctic today exhibits inhospitably severe climate conditions,uninhabitable for the last 8000 years, but it was recently discovered that 9000 years ago that island was not only inhabited but was green and hospitable because it was much warmer then than now even with all the cow farts scares and other tripe that the GroupThinkers bombastically spew out as factual.

Now take your GroupThink cap off for one moment, if you can, and think. It's estimated that the Minoan Warming Period was much warmer than today, the Roman Warming Period was so warm that they imported Mediterranean Wine Grape vines to cultivate in the most northern parts of Britain, during the Medieval Warming Period the Vikings thrived in Greenland where they were able to grow and harvest Barley. Proving that those periods were much warmer than today.

Again think about what you have been told to think verses observable reality.
In July 1942, 6 P-38 fighters and 2 B-17 bombers made an emergency landing on the Southeastern corner of Greenland. In 1988 one was found under 260 feet of ice. In 1992, one of those planes was found under 268 feet of ice, in August of last year another of those planes was found...under 340 feet of ice.

In the last 76 years, the thickness of Greenland ice has increased dramatically! This is completely opposite of what you have been told to believe and most likely, given your comment, never actually looked into the issue beyond what you have been told. Again, look at observational evidence rather than climate modeling which has proven incorrect for the last 20 years. Of course, what you will see is that the one sure thing that is about to debunk the entire CAGW theory is the climate itself.

That is indeed what is happening, if you look at global galciers, despite what you have been told, are mostly advancing and have been for decades, that fact is simple to verify, see chart below. When viewing glaciers you begin to see that observable evidence completely contradicts the entire CAGW theory and what we have been told by the mainstream media.

In terms of more observational evidence, if you look at the rise of CO2 in correlation to the global temperature, there is a very distinct disconnect between the data, but it's you look at Solar Activity you see a direct relationship between it and temperature. Why? Well even NASA has recognized and published the fact that it's the Sun, not CO2, That is the primary driver of the climate. Of course, is important to recognize that the entire global climate system is a very complex interplay between forces that science has yet to fully understand or discover, the idea that the science is settled is perhaps the most obtuse opinion being summary sold to the public today. During the last 3000 years the variance in temperatures have ranged about 3 degrees, our present short-term term warming period has not breached that range. The main concern at the moment is the current Solar Minimum Cycle. In the last 3000 years, the only period that was extraordinary was the Little Ice Age, from that period we have seen the climate on a recovery from that extreme cooling cycle, that recovery may well be in jeapordy as the current Solar Minimum deepens into a potential Grand Solar Minimum.

Now if you want to talk about a consensus let's look at it, if that is the only thing that pushes your button. There are 31,000 scientists, in the United States alone who have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, the mind power and the peer-reviewed studies of this group of INDEPENDENT Scientists is astounding. I use the word independent because they don't receive government grants. Now, the qualifications required for these 31,000+ Scientists to even sign the petition against the theory and the policies resulting from that theory was extremely stringent, if a scientist didn't meet those qualifications he or she was not allowed to sign or the working group.

Now look at the procedures of theUnited Nations IPCC which publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however, as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted the power to approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft , but the final neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy. That procedure is highly unorthodox for any scientific study or publication. In fact, if you read the IPCC Procedures you quickly learn that it is the procedures for determining the accuracy of these reports is not scientific but in fact, it is left up to the political members that represent the various countries that makeup the Intergovernmental Panel.

@Daryl

Too many of the names associated with the man-made climate change camp have been discredited.

For me the shame of it is that efforts to improve air and water quality are damaged by this.

@Daryl

Obviously, you didn't remotely get the point about termites. Besides that fact, a straw-man argument is the engagement of a fallacy as a point of rebuttal, the statement I presented about termites is factual and their presence is such case numbers cannot simply be ignored despite your desire to do so. There are estimated 1000 pounds of termites for each of the 7,655,957,369+ people on Earth, and your crew is worried about cow farts...LMAO

First, you must acknowledge that there is no difference between the molecular composition of natural and man-made CO2, except for the presence of an C13 isotope, which happens to also be present in the Co2 emissions of volcanoes. Another recent discovery is that there are far more active volcanoes than once believed and that the emissions are far greater than previously estimated. Thus, as you have ably demonstrated, the cornerstone of the CAGW, has been and remains, the premise that significant increase of man-made CO2 have acted, though they can't really describe the exact mechanism, to unnaturally warm the Earth beyond is ability to maintain a “proper” level of temperature, creating in the process some imaginary apocalyptic catastrophe that will make the Earth unbearable. Of course, it is impossible for such pundits to make such assertions when the Earth and mankind, have experienced periods of far greater warming in the past and yet we are still thriving.

Now with the discovery of nearly one million active volcanoes (primarily submarine volcanoes) and the drastic increase in the estimated emissions from such volcanoes, making it impossible to distinguish between human-induced CO2 and volcanic CO2, the idea that human-induced emissions of CO2 is the primary cause of an atmospheric imbalance is simply and logically absurd, but the consensus scientists are forced to rationalize away the lack of evidence that supports their theory, most still quote Gerlach 1991, as their evidence.

Let's put these facts into perspective, it has been recently discovered that there are 1500 land volcanoes and about 900,000 seafloor and subglacial volcanoes which are and have been very active, but even non-active volcanoes emit massive amounts of CO2. This discovery was, by the way, made by a multinational team led by NASA with a -resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project. So, the question becomes what is the real source of the increase of atmospheric CO2? Of course, in order to maintain the rise, your answer must be human fossil fuel consumption, otherwise the theory almost instantly falls apart despite the science.

Of course, one of the most striking characteristics I've noticed in all the scientific papers that are pro-AGW, is the seemingly unwillingness to consider other possibilities that pose a threat to their cherished and inordinate protection of their theory. In the last 50 years I've never seen anything like it. Recent research, which it is obvious that you've not read or are even aware of, has proven that contentions of these AGW scientists is very far from being 100% proven scientific fact, though they boisterously declare it will to be just that: settled.

Aside from the sun, it is becoming clear that the geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and it's possibly one of the root causes to changes, not only in the oceans but the climate as well. Now, this naturally triggers the oceans warmth to degassing massive amounts of CO2. But because of a myopic view of fossil fuel-man made CO2, a huge amount of research that rightly doesn't support the CAGW meme, some scientists ignore any other research that doesn't include the AGW premise.

Now, something to consider is inherent in setting up the IPCC and all subsequent climate models that followed, was the belief that there was both correlation and cause and effect between the world’s temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That view is a serious flaw which has led to much wasted effort and a lot of confusion in the world’s science and engineering communities and the misallocation of massive resources and money. In the not-too distant future that fact will come to light as the climate reality debunks the AGW theory completely, it's already beginning in fact. In the IPCC 2007 Assessment on Climate Change, even the IPCC climatologists admitted of having a low or very low understanding of 13 out of 15 major factors that drive the climate, yet they, like all of the AGW ilk, proclaim it a settled science, so much so that, as we have seen, AGW alarmists have resorted to censorships as a means to squash views and research that contradicts the AGW prognostications.
So in other words, they only know what they are doing 13.3% of the time yet they want us to trust them and completely change the entire world’s energy production system at a cost of untold trillions of dollars because they just might be correct. The fact is if you read all the IPCC Assessments you quickly see that there are not just holes in their research, but in the conclusions they have reached.

The really amazing thing that prior to the formation of the IPCC in 1988, there was little to no support among the entire Scientific community for the theory that CO2 was causing planetary change and the earth's temperature; given that CO2 is only .004% of the atmosphere even today that does seem to be a stretch. For example the American Meteorological Society (AMS) had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology [3]. Where they stated that “the idea that CO2 could alter the climate was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” Then we have the hugely influential National Academy of Science Charney Report from 1979 [4]. This 33-year-old U.S. government report details the role of carbon dioxide and how it might impact climate. You will see that while CO2 is mentioned no less than 112 times, as you’d expect, nowhere in this report will you find ANY mention of the greenhouse gas effect/theory.
Thus, the novelty of its acceptance as a Scientific proof has only been around for about 31 years, on top of that there's been virtually no research of substance on Earth's CO2 Sensitivity since the 80s, for good reason, it pretty much debunks the AGW theory.

What has happened is that rather then look at climate and how it changes over time and ignoring that it is not a constant, AGW scientists have, contrary to the Scientific Method tried to prove the CO2 was the cause and essentially the only cause of change. What should have been done and which was done, was construct a null hypothesis argument to see if we could prove that the CO2 was not the cause instead of tying to make the models show that it was the cause.

Enmasse, what was done with climate models was to tweak the assumptions to give the result that was desired and that has lead to a wide disparity between observed temperatures and the predictions of those temperatures by the models. That's why when you look at climate models you see several of them with drastically different results and each giving their own 90 to 95% confidence levels which is utterly impossible. It becomes so obvious when looking at this disparity, which in itself has become a major issue with the IPCC and the supporting agencies and an increasing number of scientists which are not in support of the way the climate work have been done.

Oh, you are very wrong, AGW Scientists have indeed attempted to deny the past, I'm sure you've not read the emails in the climategate case, but look into those emails you will find proof that they sought to make those previous Warming Periods, particularly the most recent Medieval Warming disappear in order to make the AGW theory more palatable. They have done the same with the 1930s and 1940s the proof for that can be found in NASA/NOAA's own Global Average Temperature data-sets. Do yourself a favor, print archived charts from NASA/NOAA from the 80s and 90s then print a transparency of modern versions of the very same charts, overlay the modern charts and you will instantly see the discrepancies.

Let's look into the conjecture of sea levels rising, the leading recognized scientist, an expert sea level studies, Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner presents some stark examples that show how the IPCC and climate activists are wildly exaggerating their claims of rapid sea level rise, in fact he has labeled it completely unscientific. For example, recently in the 17th century, the sea level was 70 cm higher, as confirmed by immutable geomorphological facts, and yet today the AGW crowd loudly insist that the seas are rising and will cause billions of dollars in damage, except, of course, to the beach side mansions of Al Gore and the celebrities that push this utter nonsense to an unsuspecting and gullible public.

This is yet another thing the IPCC has missed the target on, there is in fact a phenomenon thus proves that the IPCC is wrong, is called Rotational Eustasy, I'm sure you've never heard of it in the AGW camp, for good reason, in warmer cycles the seas doesn't rise globally, in the northern hemisphere the volume increases a bit but at the equated the levels are virtually unchanged. In warm times, the sea level does not rise globally. Because of this phenomenon, though not yet fully understood, the sea levels at the Fiji Islands, Maldives, Goa has dropped since 1950s
despite the bunk prognostications of the faithful AGW adherents Also other islands or coastal regions show a sea level change, such as the island Ouvéa, here too, the oceans sank around 1700, rose around 1800 and sank again after 1950.

I don't accuse these Climate Scientist of some Deep State conspiracy, I accuse then of bad science that have not sought, as the Scientific Method requires that a scientist to nullify or falsify the AGW theory not to set out to prove it and, as has been proven to use the premise that man-made CO2 is the cause of this most recent temporary warming cycle that actually started to decline into this current and potentially massive cooling cycle. You think global warming was going to be a problem for humanity and the Earth, I'd much rather face a world of global warming than global cooling. Even NASA is beginning to recognize that the Earth and its atmosphere are, in fact cooling.

@Daryl

You mean the logic of the repeated claim of the 98% myth? Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous...more recently a more extensive survey of find that only 52% stated that global warming was probably caused by man and fossil fuel. John Cook's survey has even been rejected by AGW scientists, but keep believing despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. His entire website has been refuted, he's not even a climate scientist, he's a cognitive scientist.

10 Top Scientists, along with 31,000 U.S., refute AGW.

Scientist #1 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. David Evans

Scientist #2 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Denis Rancourt

Scientist #3 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Freeman Dyson

Scientist #4 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Judith Curry

Scientist #5 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor & Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever

Scientist #6 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Don Easterbrook

Scientist #7 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Meteorologist & Physicist Piers Corbyn

Scientist #8 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor and Geologist Bob Carter

Scientist #9 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Engineer & Former White House Advisor John Casey

Scientist #10 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Meteorologist John Coleman

Here is a survey completed 2 years after the John Cook, et al 97% myth:

[joannenova.com.au]

@Daryl I was alive in the 1970’s when “Science” told us we would freeze to death in the coming ice age. As a young teen at the time, it scared the crap out of me. Before that, they scared me with the whole overpopulation scare and the push for zpg. Now they tell me there is warming, that it’s caused by man and many of us will die (again). Forgive me for being a skeptic but when meteorologists can’t get the forecast for tomorrow straight, how am I to believe in these climate models which are claimed to predict what will happen in 50-100 years? I know, weather is not climate (except when the alarmists want to use it to support their claims) but weather is one hell of a lot more simple than climate. Scientists once told us that women were intellectually inferior to men and blacks to whites, that bleeding was good for what ailed you and radiation wouldn’t hurt you. Science is always progressing, learning and correcting itself, thank God. I believe this scare will join the rest of those things which were corrected with better data, less political pressure to conform and less politics in science.

@Daryl

Let's take a close look at the theory of Greenhouse Gases, first the entire concept of the Earth atmospheric exchange resembling a green house is a misnomer that lends credit to the AGW theory, and while there are many definitions and variations of the Greenhouse Effect there is only one official definition stipulated by the IPCC, so I'll focus on that one:

"Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average, the outgoing long-wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without greenhouse gases ... ".

Thus, the entire cornerstone of the theory rests upon two points: The concept that so-called Greenhouse gasses may trap outgoing IR radiation from the surface of the Earth and the assumption that Irradiation works be sent back to the Earth's surface by Greenhouse gases by something they call, but have never been able to prove, called backradiation, thus, they say, increasing the temperature of the Earth.

Both concepts violate very basic laws of thermodynamics (LoT). The 1st LoT, the principle of energy conservation, is violated because, if "backradiation" was able to increase the initial temperatures, additional energy would be created out of nothing without introducing any work from outside the system. (ii) The 2nd LoT indicates that a cooler body cannot add thermal energy to a hotter body by simple radiative "reflection." CO2 is, as it's all gasses, cooler than the surface of the Earth. The Clausius statement of this law reads, "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature." An impressive number of methodologies and established physical concepts support the validity of the thermodynamic laws. They cannot be simply ignored to suit a desired result such as AGW. Science thankfully doesn't work that way. So, that being the case we should ask what then is going on in the AGW camp that would cause such an adverse stance that conflicts with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The Earth system is nothing like a Greenhouse, in fact it is far closer to the analogy of a heat pump .The land masses and oceans warm the atmosphere and not vice versa, in fact only the Blue-Green Spectrum of visible solar light is capable of heating the depths of the ocean, Short-wave IR radiation emitted by CO2 Can only penetrate to about 3 mms of the ocean surface and it's of no consequence in terms of oceanographic warming. So what is the major driver's of ocean warmth? It's certainly not CO2, it's the sun and the oceans, which make up about 77% of the Earth, is warmed primarily by the sun.

Now let's think about the air in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. With an average temperature of about -18°C, that's cold and all the gases, including CO2 within the atmosphere is cold, now again what does the Laws of Thermodynamics say about heat transfer, that a cold body cannot heat a warm body and yet according to AGW-related science, the CO2 not only just act as an insulating blanket, but it must emit short-wave IR radiation that's supposed to heat 1 m3 of Earth's soil by 33°C to a maximum daily temperature of 14.5°C. The gases in the troposphere would thus be required to do 33°C × 1936 kJ/°C or 63,756 kJ of mechanical work. If the absurd idea that a gas at -18°C can transmit heat, by some unknown mechanism, to a warmer body is overlooked, the origin of the energy is also ignored, and the 2nd LoT ceases to exist, it might be possible to support a GHE involving such energy transfers, but only if you ignore a massive amount of physical sciences in the process.

@Daryl

Do you know just how many predictions made by these climate Scientists, that you have confidence in, have failed to materialize. Again, history is absolutely filled to the brim with scientific predictions that were certain, at the time, based on premises that were incorrect, which produced results that proved scientific certainty that turned out to be wrong. Hell, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, predicted that we would never, ever produce nuclear energy. No one, no scientist or science is immune to the Science of Human Error.

Here's a short list of failed climate predictions:

FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”

Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”

Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”

Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”

Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,

Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”

Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”

Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”

Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

Spiegel, 1 April 2000

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”

IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”

Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”

Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”

Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”

Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”

FOCUS, 24 May 2006

21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”

Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

22. “Winters: wet and mild”

Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”

Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”

Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.

Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”

Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,

Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”

Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.

German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”

Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”

Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”

State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”

Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”

BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”

Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”

Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”

Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”

Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”

IPCC Climate Change, 2001

42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”

IPCC Climate Change, 2001

43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”

IPCC Climate Change, 2007

44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”

Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”

Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…

Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”

Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”

Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”

Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”

BBC News, 20 Dec 2004

[BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”

Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.

NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”

Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”

Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”

Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”

Guardian, 14 February 2004

[4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]

59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”

David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”

Spiegel, 3 June 2006

[The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]

61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

“The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”

62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”

Guardian, 26 August 2006.

[guardian.co.uk]

63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”

Telegraph December 14, 2006

[telegraph.co.uk]

65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”

BBCs Climate Change Experiment

[bbc.co.uk]

66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)

67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)

The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:

[greenpeace.org]

Impacts of climate change in Belgium

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”

NASA, June 2, 1999

[giss.nasa.gov]

69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”

Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”

David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

February 14, 2004

[theguardian.com]

71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”

Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich

[theguardian.com]

72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”

Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard

[standard.co.uk]

73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.

Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”

76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”

[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

—****

88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”

90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”

[Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”

[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

@Daryl

Ah, so you admit that AGW is indeed a Hypothesis, now do yourself a favor and look up the definition of hypothesis. I've studied both the AGW Hypothesis and the laws of thermodynamics for over 30 years, I may have picked up something in all those years, but let's see if I do understand those issues shall we?

As you will see, the only thing that attempts discredit centuries ago science, the leases of physics and direct observation, of which I've supplied you numerous examples of direct observation and you have yet supply a single one, is the pseudo-science called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

With the long-established physical laws of material hydrostatics and thermodynamics, all relevant experimental data must conform those laws, don't you agree? The GHE hypothesis, on which the AGW hypothesis rests, as it is promoted by certain circles of scientists and the IPCC, claims that atmospheric gases, in particular CO2 as well as methane and water vapor, are capable of "trapping" outgoing infrared radiation (IR) and by some yet be explained process it re-radiates IR back the Earth's surface, and this process somehow increases the Earth's surface temperature.

Now, if you read the thematic reports of Gehrlich & Tscheuschner,i Johnson & ‘O Sullivan,ii Nahle,iii Siddons,iv Lindzen,v Thieme,vi Postma,vii Hertzberg,viii Hug,ix Miskolczi,x Svensmark,xi Shaviv,xii and Ball.xiii along with numerous others, you will find that they all highlight something pretty amazing and that is the lack of scientific basis for various aspects of the entire GHE, this the hypothesis of the corresponding AGW theory. The mounting number of studies and reports critical of the AGW hypothesis is interesting, if for no other reason, they are arising during a period when political-ideological and media manipulation has been so forceful in an attempt not only control the entire narrative, squash dissent in science itself, but has spent billions attempting completely influence public opinion achieve something that is, in reality, based solely on scientific assumptions.

Thankfully, both the veracity and the confidence of the IPCC and the so-called, but non-existent consensus was knocked off its feet by the 1000 emails leaked in 2009 and again the leak in 2011 of over 5000 emails that revealed not only the unscientific behavior by some of the most notable and supposedly reputable climate scientists, but they also exposed wide-spread falsification of data and also falsification of published reports of those scientists along with unethical practices that decry the entire notion of what science is suppose function.

Are you familiar with the principle of Falsifiability:
It is “criterion of demarcation" between science from nonscience, as such the principle is the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model of scientific inquiry, a law claim, theory, or hypothesis H is falsifiable when a potentially checkable prediction O can be logically deduced from it, that is, when H ? O. If O is observed be true, then H passes this predictive test (although it may fail other tests). If O tests false, then H must also be false, since no true statement can logically imply a falsehood.

Falsifiability is therefore, the assertion that for any hypothesis have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

However, there has not been, thus far, an organic work, that I've read and I read a great deal on both sides of the AGW hypothesis, that is based on a correct combination of thermodynamic and hydrostatic approaches required come close in the evaluation of temperature changes that are always found within a fluid in hydrostatic equilibrium. As such there is nothing, thus far that establishes, or even connects the key and central concepts that disprove the GHE hypothesis. Thus the principle of Falsifiability has been met regarding this theory, all the studies that I've read only seek prove the theory correct without apparent concern for the principle. When you see all these studies, even embellished with calculations of atmospheric temperature changes, the basic application of the most fundamental scientific concepts have been almost completely lacking. How can that possibly be true you ask? When scientists start with a theoretical premise prove rather than falsify every subsequent experiment becomes biased toward that premise, in other words junk goes in, junk comes out.

So in regards to the principle of falsifiability, along with the laws of thermodynamics and take a look at just a single aspect of the AGW hypothesis:

According to science related to the AGW hypothesis, given that the air in the troposphere has an average temperature of -18C and is suppose to therefore heat 1 m3 of Earth soil you 33C to a maximum daily temperature of 14.5C, based on that the gases in the troposphere would require 33°C × 1936 kJ/°C or 63,756 kJ of mechanical work. Think about that single point for a moment, keeping in mind that the temperature of gases in the troposphere average a temperature of -18C or -0.4 Fahrenheit, and with that information keep in mind that everything must adhere to the laws of material hydrostatics as well as, the laws of thermodynamics. The AGW hypothesis assumes that a cold body, in this case CO2 can, by some unknown and yet discovered mechanism, transmit heat to a warmer body, then that, in itself is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, don't believe it then by all scientific means prove me wrong. It would be very possible for me to be an avid and vocal supporter of the AGW hypothesis if, and only if, the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist, but it does.

Let's take a step deeper, according to the AGW/GHE hypothesis, the atmosphere has a gap between the Earth's surface temperature that is always +33°C or a ?33°C. The ?33°C differential between the temperatures of the Earth's surface with no atmosphere and with an atmosphere, then it must be that the Sun does work W (summer energy) and W' (winter energy) on the gases G, and T (summer temperatures) and T' (winter temperatures) will always be:

W/G = 33 + T and 3 W'/G = 33 + T' so that 4 W/G - W'/G = T - T' and therefore 5 W - W'/T - T' = G (a constant) so that 6 ?W/?T = think and differentiating 7dk=0
*Note: this platform doesn't allow for the proper formula format for some reason.

But what did that mean? I'm sure you're asking. According to the AGW hypothesis, solar effect with respect to the Earth's surface temperatures would therefore, not affect terrestrial atmospheric gases, why you ask? Because, according to the AGW hypothesis, atmospheric gases must maintain a stable deferential of +33C between the without and with atmospheric temperatures of the Earth's surface, regardless of solar activity. Are you beginning to see even the slightest discrepancy between the hypothesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics?

So while it's absolutely correct that atmospheric gases are transparent regarding incoming short-wave solar radiation, although because the Earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, which carries other implications regarding the entire AGW hypothesis, there is an a factor of impedance in the form of the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Meaning that the speed of light is 2.75×108 m/s at sea level versus 3×108 m/s in vacuum, indicating that air does interfere with sunlight, which shouldn't be surprising.

Let's assume that 1 m3 air in contact with the Earth's surface is actually able to deliver, perhaps by conduction, energy per second equal to its heat capacity, i.e., ~1300 W/m2. Do you realize just how much that amount of energy would be? It would have to be to the solar constant, which means that it would have to be five times the energy emitted at the average of 235–240 W/m2 from the TOA, that would be remarkable, to say the least. Thus the AGW hypothesis gives no reasonable cause and no explanation for such effect. I could go into the best capacity per time, but that's far to involved.

Where the AGW hypothesis becomes scientifically impossible is when they attempt to prove that CO2 or atmospheric gases warm the ocean surface, of which I've mentioned in previous comments, short-wave IR radiation can only penetrate the first 3 mm of the sea surface therefore, in order to increase 1 m3 of water but 33C, it works require 138,171 kJ at 1.329 kJ/sec, so in order for a heat pool of m3 of air would have to heat the ocean for 28.8 hours each day, but there's a problem because the maximum limit for the natural thermal cycle cannot, by any stretch of a scientific hypothesis, exceed 24 hours. Thus, since tropospheric gases don't have either the power necessary nor the time available to heat the Earth by 33C, as required by the AGW hypothesis, it is a problem, don't you think?

This is a major problem regarding the warming of the oceans because the oceans requires such an enormous amount of heat energy and too much time by the atmosphere therefore, it shouldn't come as much of surprise, from thermodynamic calculation s of energy that's exchanged by different materials such as the atmospheric gases and the Earth and oceans as well as the time involved and the fact that air is not a good conductor of heat, in any case.

Ok it's my bedtime, I'll continue this line of thought at a later time.

@Daryl

Have you by chance taken a glance at the official NASA global temperature data-sets from February 2016 February 2019? The global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius despite the rapidly increase of CO2. If you don't know what that means it is the biggest three-year drop in the past century. Now, given that, according the AGW hypothesis, the rise of CO2 should cause a similar rise, not decline in temperature. As I've said, the climate itself will debunk the entire scientism of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming or the more palatable and even more deceitful euphemism Climate Change, and we won't have wait long for the AGW camp try explain away the vast discrepancy between the objective reality of the actual climate and their bogus government-funded hypothesis, but no avail. Eventually, as has happened so many times in the past, be forced admit that they were very wrong.

I see you are still hanging on the widely debunked 98% meme and the totally debunked SkepticalScience blog of John Cook. Good luck with that...

@Daryl

Please read Your comment again, you have just presented us with a perfect example of a Circular Argument, expressing one of the most exquisite logical fallacies I've encountered in decades.

"If it weren't for AGW, we could be on the way to an ice age. A supervening effect like AGW would explain the original hypothesis."

In that statement you completely and astonishly discount all natural warning mechanisms of the Earth, most of which are completely unknown or not understood. So now, by inference, you state that AGW is a good thing in preventing another possible iceage. I suppose, based on your odd statement, has helped prevent the onset of an iceage for the last 11,700 years, I mean what else could do that right?

Again, it has to be CO2 right, what else could it possibly be? Oh wait, you mean for the last 31 years or so there has been virtually no funded research on the natural warning mechanisms or climate sensitivity of the Earth system...AGW and it's adherents are predictably myopic and with that myopic view the premise becomes it's own answer... It has to be CO2..(Because that's the starting point of the hypothesis and the ending point of the hypothesis... With AGW as the baseline of the assumption all research and experiment can only result in the expected result of the at baseline)

@Daryl

Hilarious, so let me ask you what prevented ice ages in the past, what caused the Earth to come out from a deep freeze before the rise of CO2? What other mechanism could drastically warm the Earth when the levels of CO2 were not at 400 ppm, or 300 ppm but 260 ppm or less. Now a are taking about a drastic increase in temperatures, not just one or two degrees. Something other than CO2 mechanically changed the oceans and land mass temperatures, so much so that areas currently uninhabitable were habaital in less than 2000 years. Since man-made CO2 wasn't around do you think, in light of your very circular argument, that it is possible that there are many other factors at play in our current world that have absolutely nothing to do with human-induced climate change.

Supervenience of AGW, as in your argument, does not allow for the conclusion reached to be based on anything other than the baseline of is original premise, it excludes, necessarily, factors that, at present are neither fully known nor fully understood. Your argument was explicitly circular, not just implicit in construction.

@Daryl "Why do well over 95% of climate science experts now concur? ".. science does not operate as a concensus. Your reply is ideological, not science and thus not persuasive.

Exactly, not only that but if you read the first IPCC reports verses later versions you find so many contractions that it's simply impossible to ignore. Not to mention the manner in which these reports are complied and edited, even the scientists are chosen because they have already concluded the science is "settled". A few years ago it was discovered that the IPCC scientists are peer-reviewing each other's scientific papers on the subject... It's an echo chamber.

@Daryl
The most hilarious this is that you actually cite John Cooks website, the guy that headed up the fake 97.4% survey.

On John Cooks website, you can currently see 102 observation. Each of the "slogans" is accompanied by a short attempted rebuttal by John Cook. And if you click it, you get to a long rebuttal. So let's look at them:

1. It's the sun: I agree with Richard Lindzen that it's silly to try to find "one reason behind all climate change", because the climate is pretty complex and clearly has lots of drivers, and this applies to the opinion that "everything is in the Sun", too. Cook shows that the solar irradiance is too small and largely uncorrelated to the observed changes of temperatures. I agree with that: a typical 0.1% change of the output is enough for a 0.025% change of the temperature in Kelvins which is less than 0.1 °C and unlikely to matter much. But I find it embarrassing for a student of solar physics such as himself to be so narrow-minded. The Sun influences the Earth's atmosphere not only directly by the output but also indirectly, by its magnetic field and its impact on the cosmic rays (via solar wind etc.) and other things. He has completely ignored all these things. Of course, I am actually not certain that these effects are very important for the climate but the evidence - including peer-reviewed articles - is as diverse as the evidence supporting CO2 as an important driver.

2. Climate's changed before: Cook says that the previous history of the climate shows that the climate is sensitive to imbalances. Indeed, it is and it has always been. And he says that the past history provides evidence for sensitivity to CO2. Well, it virtually doesn't. CO2, much like other effects, adds imbalances and pushes the temperature around. But there exists no way to disentangle CO2 from many other effects or argue that it has become the most important driver. So the climate continues to change in the same way as it did in the past, by the typical changes per year, decade, and century, and Cook has offered no evidence whatsoever that something has changed about the very fact that the climate is changing.

3. There is no consensus: This counter-point #3 is clearly obsolete: Cook tries to argue that 97% climate scientists endorse something - it sounds like a TV commercial. Most of his graphs are obsolete, too - the current support for various AGW-related statements is close to 1/2 of the figures he copied in an "optimistic" moment for his favorite political movement. The reality is that most scientists disagree with the basic tenets of the AGW orthodoxy - and even people like Phil Jones now agree that nothing unprecedented is going on with the climate right now (including no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and the existence of a medieval warm period), while Kevin Trenberth has agreed that the climate hasn't warmed and the popular models are inconsistent with this fact - what a travesty. There still exist large bodies of climate scientists who prefer to promote the panic - because they've been hired to do so or because it results from their political biases (which are mostly leftist in the Academia). The funding for climate science has increased 10-fold in the last 10- 20 years - purely because of the possible threat - which means that 90% of the people (or 90% of the funding) is working on proofs of this pre-determined conclusion. At any rate, these discussions provide us with no evidence for the actual science - they're just about an attempt of the largely political movements to intimidate the scientists in the very same way in which Nazis wanted to intimidate the "Jewish science" by the consensus of the "Aryan scientists". Einstein would tell them that it's enough to find one scientist to prove Einstein wrong.

4. It's cooling: Again, Cook's graphs and statements are obsolete and a few years from the moment he wrote the page were enough to falsify his new predictions about the accumulating heat. The reality is that between 1998 or 2001 or other years on one side and 2009 on the other side, the global mean temperature dropped. Sometimes it's cooling, sometimes it's warming. The year 2010 is likely to be much warmer than 2009, approaching the temperatures of 1998, but when the El Nino fully switches to a La Nina, things can be very different. The fact that there's been no significant warming for 15 years has been accepted by both sides of this debate. And since 1998, it's just cooling. Cook has no counter-arguments. He just says that the heat flows influence the temperature and I agree with that. Except that he doesn't show in which way the flows are going to go e.g. in the next 10 years.

5. Models are unreliable: Cook says that models have made predictions that were successfully compared to observations. Except that this is not enough for the models to be reliable. For them to be reliable, it would have to be the case that the models have produced no predictions that were inconsistent with the observations - because one wrong prediction is enough to falsify a model. Clearly, such falsification has taken place with all of them. In particular, all IPCC-endorsed models predicted a warming since 1998 that didn't occur. They're gone. Again, both sides agree that we can't rely on them. Kevin Trenberth agrees that the disagreement of the models and the data is a travesty. There are hundreds of recent examples showing how deeply flawed the existing IPCC-endorsed models are.

6. Temp record is unreliable: In his counter-point, Cook talks about the urban heat island effects that are "negligible". Well, they're surely not negligible because the estimated urban warming in typical large cities exceeds the whole assumed warming caused by CO2 - something like 0.6 °C. So it matters a lot whether the urban effects are isolated. But the urban effects are far from being the only problem with the surface temperature record. The number of recently found dramatic problems with the surface record is so huge that I can't even enumerate them here.

7. It hasn't warmed since 1998: Cook claims that the Earth continued to accumulate heat. If you check his evidence, you will see that it is a circular reasoning because the sources also use the models in which the warming should have continued. The fact is that no warming has occurred since 1998 so it's likely that there's also no warming in the "pipeline". Cook emphasizes that 1998 was a year of a strong El Nino. Of course, it was, but it was not unprecedented or unrepeatable. The most recent El Nino episode reached more than 2/3 of the maximum of the 1997/1998 El Nino episode. So they're surely comparable, to say the least. If 2010 will match the temperatures of 1998, it still means that the "trend-like" warming per 12 years is only comparable to 1/3 of the effect of one El Nino, or 1/6 of the difference between an El Nino and La Nina peaks. It's very small.

8. Ice age predicted in the 70s: Cook claims that these predictions were largely media- based. Well, the same is true about the current global warming alarm. It's mostly media-based and good scientists are simply not working on such conspiracy theories. It's still true that less good scientists are working on them, and they were also working in the 1970s. Sometimes it's the very same people. For example, Rasool and Schneider predicted a new ice age in 1971 - in an article in Science. The relative importance of the "scientific community" and the "media" is pretty much the same as it was in the global cooling alarm in the 1970s - the recent global warming hysteria just got far more severe than the global cooling hysteria 35 years ago.

9. We're heading into an ice age: Cook claims that CO2 beats all other things. At some point in the future, this statement will of course become ridiculous. Ice ages may be 10 °C cooler than the interglacials. Because of the logarithmic character of the greenhouse warming, one can't ever compensate 10 °C of cooling by an added CO2 because the concentration would have to jump something like 256-fold. It's clear that a "big" ice age will return in a multiple of 10,000 years and the people will only be able to deal with it if they have a much stronger technology than the current ones. Also, a "little" ice age may return within a century, and a possible cooling by 2 °C, as seen historically, will be greater than the effect of the CO2.

10. Antarctica is gaining ice: Cook claims it's not, when looked at the whole continent. Well, the graphs of the sea ice area in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres show that both of them are very near the normal levels right now, as extracted in the last 30 years or so. In the last 50 years, Antarctica was cooling, but such things are due to many coincidences. It is completely plausible that in the next 50 years, it will be the Arctic that will be cooling. It's preposterous to promote these random changes to "signals from God": the huge variability of the polar regions is a rule rather than an exception.

11. CO2 lags temperature: Cook uses the usual talking counter-point, trying to say that the influence goes in both directions. Qualitatively speaking, it's right. Quantitatively speaking, the influence of CO2 on the temperature during the ice age cycles has been so much weaker than the opposite influence that it is pretty much undetectable and remains a theoretically justified by empirically unsupported speculation. It's clear that the outgassing etc. - the influence of temperature on the concentration of gases - explains the bulk of the correlation between the temperature and the concentrations as seen in the Vostok ice core (and others). It's a very important that the Vostok charts provide us with no evidence of the greenhouse effect and whoever is saying something else is a liar: Al Gore has been caught as one of them but there are many. More generally, it's preposterous to pretend that the greenhouse effect is "on par" with the opposite effects because it's at least one order of magnitude smaller and undetectable in practice.

12. Al Gore got it wrong: According to Cook, despite small errors, AIT is consistent with science about the basic questions. What a complete nonsense. Courts in the U.K. enumerated 9 major errors - and there are dozens of other errors that have been admitted - and especially because of the overall misleading alarmist bias of the movie that couldn't be supported by the science, the judge allowed the movie to be screened only if the teachers also explain the kids what the errors are and why the movie is just a political propaganda. Even though the movie is just 5 years old, it's already clear that it failed the test of time. All the details predictions have been falsified - for example "new record hot years" that should follow 2005, strengthening hurricanes that should have flooded parts of Florida by now, and so on. Scientifically speaking, the movie is complete garbage and whoever doesn't realize this trivial fact shouldn't be treated as a serious party in discussions.

13. Global warming is good: Cook claims that the negative impact on agriculture, health, economy, and environment outweighs any positives. In reality, the overall impact is positive in all four cases. The agriculture becomes more effective, is able to feed people more easily, the economy grows, the fees for heating go down (and they exceed the money paid for cooling today). Cook's statement is preposterous: if there were warming, it would be beneficial for life on Earth and the human society, too. Even 5 °C of warming would be a net positive. Cook's methodology to "prove" that the negatives win is completely absurd. He first decided how many "positives" and "negatives" he allows in each category (so that the negatives dominate), and then he randomly added a few papers supporting them. That's a completely wrong methodology. If he actually calculated the effects on agriculture in dollars rather than in "talking points" (whose number was predetermined, anyway), he would see that the positives outweigh the negatives by an order of magnitude or more.

14. It's freaking cold: He correctly says that a few extreme local weather episodes aren't enough to calculate the global or long-term trend. However, it's exactly the alarmist movement - and the likes of Al Gore - who would be making this error all the time. I agree that the record-high/record-low ratio has dropped to one-half or so. But this change is unspectacular. In some counting, it is just a 1-sigma effect because the numbers are comparable: you can say that the overall warming that's been accumulated hasn't yet reached one times the normal noise. Clearly, the ratio can continue to grow in the future but this is what would happen given the same change of the temperature, whatever its reason is. The longer record we have, the more we deviate from the temperatures at the beginning - whether the cause is natural or man-made - and the more extreme ratio of hot or cool records (in either direction) we have to get. There's nothing to be surprised by here.

Not only that but Benjamin Santer was also part of the "hide the decline" controversy from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.... the fact that he was part of the group that tried to hide the cooling of the earth over a ten year period, also adds to my assertion that his work is tainted by bias.

@Daryl

Show me where you see warming, drastic warming that doesn't follow the natural variations of climate cycles... Outside of anomalies. Now, it's important to consider how many times in the past there has been a so-called consensus on some scientific issue only to late be proven completely wrong. Usually such consensus is highly publicized, for obvious reasons.

What current AGW prognosticators cannot explain adequately is the last 100 to 300 years of climate variability within the context of the Global Warming theory. For instance, they can't explain the 1920s, 1930s and then 1940s.

Perhaps, that is why if you go to the archives of NASA, NOAA and other government climate twisted agencies and research their documented average global climate charts you find so many contractions why their modern versions of the same datasets. Print a copy of say the 1988 AGT and then make a transparency of the 2018 AGT version you will instantly see what has taken place. The documented and verified data from the early charts have been altered... Don't believe me look for yourself.

I find it very interesting that observable nature doesn't seem to agree WTH the AGW theories, for instance, there is an island of the coast of Britain that is connected to the mainland by a tidal road that is still in use today. The island is Osea, and the Romans built a tidal road to the island over 2000 years ago and at the same low tide is is still above the sea levels just as in the past.

Another very interesting observation is Greenland. In July 1942, 6 P-38 fighters and 2 B-17 bombers made an emergency landing on the Southeastern corner of Greenland. In 1988 one was found under 260 feet of ice. In 1992, one of those planes was found under 268 feet of ice, in August of last year another of those planes was found...under 340 feet of ice. If the AGW climate contortionists are correct shouldn't we see far less ice accumulation not hundreds of feet in less than 80 years.

Here are a few articles from the past, going back to 1922 when the Arctic was almost free of ice, along with other articles.

@Daryl
The fact is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary. The question is if you don't look for it then how do you know such evidence exists, do you simply accept a version of consensus while ignoring the other side of that consensus. Such as over 31,000 highly recognized scientists in the U.S alone that have not only refuted the entire CAGW theory as incorrect, but have when gone as far as label it a political-scientific fraud.

The historical record does not contain any report of “global warming” catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia. As I stated previously, it was so warm during the medieval warning that the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland and cultivate barley.

As I stated in a previous comment, there is an Arctic Island called Zhokhov in the Siberian High Arctic today, with all the global warming that has such severe climate conditions, it has been uninhabitable for the last 8000 years, but it was recently discovered that 9000 years ago that island was not only inhabited but was green and hospitable because it was much warmer then than now even with all the cow farts scares and other tripe that the GroupThinkers bombastically spew out as factual.

The argument for CAGW doesn't appear to even be logical in view of the evidence to the contrary. For instance, if it were accurate there should not have been an accumulation of ice on Greenland of over 340 feet since 1942, during the start of the most massive CO2 Emissions from the 40s to present, the evidence is contrary to the theory. How is it possible for the Roman Tidal Road to the island of Osea in Britain to be usable today at the same low tide cycle as it was over 2000 years ago when it was built? If the theory is correct, if the prognostications are right then why does so much observable evidence not support that theory?

There it's other physical evidence that should be considered, such as ancient stone buildings built at the sea, that have the same sea level markings as they have had for several thousand years, why if the theory is correct? Look at all of the predictions of the CAGW tribe, tell me how many have been correct or even close. There a very good reason they had to distance term from the term Global Warming, the climate didn't follow the pattern of predictions, thus the rather sneaky term, broad enough and non-scientic enough to include anything, plus the kitchen sink. You should look at a partial list of what has been attributed to climate change, it's perhaps one of the most scientifically embarrassing compilation of bufoonary you'll ever read.

A few years ago I stood on the exact same spot on the beach in the Florida Keys, at the exact same time and tide as my Great Grandfather and Great Grandmother did on the day they were married on that beach as they were splashed by the waves with their bare feet and dressed to the hilt.

@Daryl

Here is the response of Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr John Chirsty of UAH this latest "study" in statistical probability, they agree with me that when your premise is programmed into the methodology then the results of everything will always confirm that premise.

"A new paper in Nature Climate Change by Santer et al.(paywalled) claims that the 40-year record of global tropospheric temperatures agrees with climate model simulations of anthropogenic global warming so well that there is less than a 1 in 3.5 million chance (5 sigma, one-tailed test) that the agreement between models and satellites is just by chance.

And, yes, that applies to our (UAH) dataset as well.

While it’s nice that the authors commemorate 40 years of satellite temperature monitoring method (which John Christy and I originally developed), I’m dismayed that this published result could feed a new “one in a million” meme that rivals the “97% of scientists agree” meme, which has been a very successful talking point for politicians, journalists, and liberal arts majors.

John Christy and I examined the study to see just what was done. I will give you the bottom line first, in case you don’t have time to wade through the details:

The new Santer et al. study merely shows that the satellite data have indeed detected warming (not saying how much) that the models can currently only explain with increasing CO2 (since they cannot yet reproduce natural climate variability on multi-decadal time scales).

That’s all.

But we already knew that, didn’t we? So why publish a paper that goes to such great lengths to demonstrate it with an absurdly exaggerated statistic such as 1 in 3.5 million (which corresponds to 99.99997% confidence)? I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question for you to ponder.

There is so much that should be said, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Current climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming

First, you must realize that ANY source of temperature change in the climate system, whether externally forced (e.g. increasing CO2, volcanoes) or internally forced (e.g. weakening ocean vertical circulation, stronger El Ninos) has about the same global temperature signature regionally: more change over land than ocean (yes, even if the ocean is the original source of warming), and as a consequence more warming over the Northern than Southern Hemisphere.

In addition, the models tend to warm the tropics more than the extratropics, a pattern which the satellite measurements do not particularly agree with.

Current climate models are adjusted in a rather ad hoc manner to produce no long-term warming (or cooling).

This is because the global radiative energy balance that maintains temperatures at a relatively constant level is not known accurately enough from first physical principles (or even from observations), so any unforced trends in the models are considered “spurious” and removed.

A handful of weak time-dependent forcings (e.g., ozone depletion, aerosol cooling) are then included in the models which can nudge them somewhat in the warmer or cooler direction temporarily, but only increasing CO2 can cause substantial model warming.

Importantly, we don’t understand natural climate variations, and the models don’t produce it, so CO2 is the only source of warming in today’s state-of-the-art models.

The New Study Methodology

The Santer et al. study address the 40-year period (1979-2018) of tropospheric temperature measurements. They average the model’s regional pattern of warming during that time and see how well the satellite data match the models for the geographic pattern.

A few points must be made about this methodology.

As previously mentioned, the models already assume that only CO2 can produce warming, and so their finding of some agreement between model warming and satellite-observed warming is taken to mean proof that the warming is human-caused. It is not. Any natural source of warming (as we will see) would produce about the same kind of agreement, but the models have already been adjusted to exclude that possibility.

Proof of point #1 can be seen in their plot (below) of how the agreement between models and satellite observations increases over time. The fact that the agreement surges during major El Nino warm events is evidence that natural sources of warming can be misdiagnosed as an anthropogenic signature. What if there is also a multi-decadal source of warming, as has been found to be missing in models compared to observations (e.g. Kravtsov et al., 2018)?

John Christy pointed out that the two major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo, the latter shown as a blue box in the plot below), which caused temporary cooling, were in the early part of the 40-year record. Even if the model runs did not include increasing CO2, there would still be an agreement between warming trends in the models and observations just because of the volcanic cooling early would lead to positive 40-year trends. Obviously, this agreement would not indicate an anthropogenic source, even though the authors’ methodology would identify it as such.

Their metric for measuring agreement between models and observations basically multiplies the regional warming pattern in the models with the regional warming pattern in the observations. If these patterns were totally uncorrelated, then there would be no diagnosed agreement. But this tells us little about the MAGNITUDE of warming in the observations agreeing with the models. The warming in the observations might only be 1/3 that of the models, or alternatively, the warming in the models might be only 1/3 that in the observations. Their metric gives the same value either way. All that is necessary is for the temperature change to be of the same sign, and more warming in either the models or observations will cause a diagnosed increase in the level of agreement metric they use, even if the warming trends are diverging over time.

Their metric of agreement does not even need a geographic “pattern” of warming to reach an absurdly high level of statistical agreement. Warming could be the same everywhere in their 576 gridpoints covering most the Earth, and their metric would sum up the agreement at every grid point as independent evidence of a “pattern agreement”, even though no “pattern” of warming exists. This seems like a rather exaggerated statistic.

Santer-et-al-2019-one-in-a-million-plot-900x675

These are just some of my first impressions of the new study. Ross McKitrick is also examining the paper and will probably have a more elegant explanation of the statistics the paper uses and what those statistics can and cannot show.

Nevertheless, the metric used does demonstrate some level of agreement with high confidence. What exactly is it? As far as I can tell, it’s simply that the satellite observations show some warming in the last 40 years, and so do the models.

The expected pattern is fairly uniform globally, which does not tell us much since even El Nino produces fairly uniform warming (and volcanoes produce global cooling).

Yet their statistic seems to treat each of the 576 grid points as independent, which should have been taken into account (similar to time autocorrelation in time series). It will take more time to examine whether this is indeed the case.

In the end, I believe the study is an attempt to exaggerate the level of agreement between satellite (even UAH) and model warming trends, providing supposed “proof” that the warming is due to increasing CO2, even though natural sources of temperature change (temporary El Nino warming, volcanic cooling early in the record, and who knows what else) can be misinterpreted by their method as human-caused warming"

[drroyspencer.com]

@Daryl

One huge question, one that should cause any rational mind pause and ask WHAT?

Have you ever looked see just how minescule the amount of government-funded research has been fine over the last 40 years search for it even understand the rates natural warming mechanisms? Not understanding and not scientifically researching those natural warming mechanisms, that are millions of years old gives a very good reason be skeptical of the Anthropogenic research. Very little scientific research into the natural warming and the untold variables have simply been almost totally ignore because of the very short-sighted and highly unscientific assumption that all global warming is and just be man-made.

That all they assume CO2 Is because that's all that's funded. The assumption is myopic in the extreme and therefore, it becomes easy to make the assumption that is all man-made because those scientists don't have any understanding of those natural warming mechanisms because to date there is scant little global data spanning periods long enough to see or understand whether there are other forces and mechanisms at work in this extreme ultra-complex Earth climate system.

These climate scientists are therefore, crippled. The science they are conducting doesn't make room for questioning because they are using a set assumptive premise to begin with... It's like ancient man attempting brain surgery with primative tools.

That is why every single climate model and algorithm is programmed with the premise that any climate change or global warming has at it's origin an Anthropogenic source.

Even NASA and NOAA data-sets have been altered from actual temperature measurements as in the 1980s and 1990s to now include these pre-set assumptions that virtually lower historical high temperatures and increase current temperatures, what is the result of such adjustment? If you don't know then take a look at archived data-sets verses current ones.

Global Warming science is like a one-legged man trying to run a marathon.

@Daryl

Ah yes, peer-reviewed. What happens when all your peers agree with your paper before it's reviewed. It was found that the IPCC scientists peer-reviewed each other's papers. Have you ever heard of the concept of an echo chamber, otherwise known as Groupthink.

[phys.org]

In 1841, Charles Mackay published Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, it's more pertinent today than it was in 1841, I recommend you rear it.

@Daryl

“ I am well aware that science, like all human endeavors, is imperfect and caution is often merited. There have been mistakes and corrections along the way, which is how science progresses. There is no other way possible than trial, error, success and more trials, errors and successes.”

You are correct in your first paragraph however, a scientific premise that is the baseline of all subsequent experiments and research with always without exception, foster the promotion of that premise. Do you have any clue about what I'm saying he, it's not, in the case of AGW, simply a matter of trial and error, it's a matter of your premise baseline coloring every resulting model or experiment. By starting why such a baseline premise you can only arrive at that baseline because no other factors are considered to be relevant in light of the overwhelming force excerpted by the baseline premise.

“I will not look at the archived data sets. I am not a climate science expert and have no wish to be one. My main interests are in (1) the cognitive and social science of politics, (2) the origins of the surprising degree detachment of political beliefs from both reality, including empirical facts, and defensible reason or logic, and (3) articulating an 'anti-bias' political ideology (pragmatic rationalism) that is intended to make politics a little more rational than it is now, assuming it is possible to do that at all (which it may not be).”

If you have not looked at the archived data-sets then you put yourself at a disadvantage in what you say you believe because, obvious, you can't possibly know what you don't know. That being said, since you are not aware of the types of adjustments and algorithms that are being employed on subsequent data-sets sets, you naturally, without the context of previously published data-sets, your view is naturally biased to the current data-sets without ever knowing that something is amiss.

“For this discussion, I raised the new AGW confidence data to see what the reaction of skeptics would be. It turned out to be exactly what I guessed. Minds rarely change. Few or no political ideologues are Bayesian thinkers when it comes to inconvenient truths and unpleasant rational conclusions. I am firmly convinced that for most AGW skeptics, their skepticism is much more a matter of political ideology and tribalism than science.”

I'm so glad you brought up Thomas Bayes as well as, the idea of inconvenient truth. As I have more than adequately explained the idea of a premise being THE baseline for all AGW research, including statistical studies such as this latest Sigma 5 study by Dr. Santer, a man previously implicated in the 2009 and 2011 climate scandal for manipulating data, among other unethical and unscientific methodologies. Guess what baseline his Sigma 5 research used as a premise? What he could not use in conjunction what that premise is Earth's natural warming mechanisms, the Earth's Co2 Sensitivity and other totally unknown factors that would change the entire results of his study. Yet, you place your belief in, even a survey such as the 98% one that was debunked two years after John Cook et al 2013, that does not and cannot include the most vital information regarding the climate such as natural warming mechanisms and climate sensitivity because there is little research on the subject for him to include. The problem and the very real present and future threat is that this bogus science is politically activated, meaning that entire governments are formulating and executing policies based a hypothetical that uses a conclusion as a premise.

I've noticed you've used this statement in previous comments, almost as though it can't be asked of you, you've asked “what if you're wrong?” If I'm wrong, then we will a warning period that is not anywhere close to what humans have experienced in the last 10,000 years. Remember the island I mentioned in Arctic Siberia, uninhabitable for the last 8000 years, yet just 9000 years ago it was lush, verdant and it's been determined that the global temperature was 6 degrees higher than today. Even based on the worst-barry scenarios of the most ardent AGW Alarmists we won't reach that point, if anything we may reach a comparable temperature of the Roman Warming which allowed the expansion of civilization to the greatest extent at that time.

But, conversely, what if you and all the AGW Alarmists are the ones who are wrong, what if, based on long-term data, we are indeed seeing a cyclical end to the warming recovery of the little ice age. If we are facing a deep retrenchment of global temperatures because of certain cyclical patterns that are already in evidence and the very real possibility of a Grand Maunder Minimum in the Solar Cycle, what will be the result of that when the body politic is reducing their fossil fuel for a highly non-reliable source of energy. What do you think kills more people? Warm or Cold temperature? At the very least, even when much higher temperatures, and the Greening of the Earth's surface, people will be able to grow food and have a sustainable life, but if you and all the alarmists are wrong, millions if not billions of humans will starve.

“It is clear you reject the underlying climate science, and the reality of a consensus among experts, Americans and other countries. That is your choice and I respect it. I do not criticize you, but I just disagree with your facts, logic and conclusion. All I can do is try to lay out the facts and logic I rely on to come to a different conclusion. You will not change my mind and I will not change yours.”

No sir, I reject the overlaying climate science whose premise is the major influence on their conclusion without consideration of other factors that would change both their conclusion and their premise. Since don't know and therefore, don't understand these factors, such as natural warming mechanisms, it is bad science that has been intentionally popularized, mainly for political and economic purposes.

Don't believe that then simply read what Christiana Figueres, the U.N. Executive Secretary for The Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”

Also equally as disconcerting were the words of Dr Ottomar Edenhoefer, Co-chair of the IPCC stated that the purpose, as he put it: “One must free oneself from the ILLUSION that international climate policy is environmental policy. What we are doing has almost NOTHING to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.” He later said: “Climate policy almost had NOTHING to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit during which the redistribution of the World's resources will be negotiated”

But I'm sure as an Apologist, you will find some way to justify those statements because you are faithful to the doctrine no matter what is revealed.

@Daryl

I reject any science that intentionality uses a pre-existing baseline premise to reach a foregone conclusion. Again, when a so-called science doesn't abide by the Scientific Method, when it uses the manipulation of data to fit the key components of it's premise or hypothesis then yes, I reject it for what it is.

Now that you have used the logical fallacy as an argument in an attempt to relate, in some oddly formed associative rebut, my rejection of AGW as a science with other sciences and disciplines, such as engineering, medicine, by inference you seem to associate a rejection of a very particular form of what I consider a scientific deviation with therefore, a rejection of all science. My conjecture is that the premise of AGW doesn't support is conclusions based on other natural variables that are neither considered, nor fully understood and are not included, to any great extent, in the research of the AGW camp, as I have mention: "What else could it be, but CO2?" should accepted as the MOTO for the AGW science community. Again, the validity of science starts with the validity of the premise and the use of that premise with the framework of the science. When you have a science that ignores or dismisses some of the most important variables, including Earth's natural warning mechanisms, when it ignores past cyclical variations and a host of other things and focuses instead on a molecule that currently populates 40 molecules to every 100,000 molecules of air in our atmosphere and some how confer upon that minute portion of the atmosphere the power to completely alter the complextion of our climate, then yes I question is validity.

As one of my favorite Theorectical Physicists, who btw aslo rejected AGWas a bunk science, Dr. Richard Feynman said: "Id rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can be questioned"

The one thing that stands out with the AGW crowd is they don't like to have their answers questioned... I've also found that most will not debate on the host of questions asked them, they rather deflect just as you have done in this entire thread, using instead as a defense the use of euphemisms and the term expert as a buffer for their debate.

A question that is relevant to the discussion, did you, by chance, read the entire Santer et al, 2019 study?

I would naturally assume that you can defend it because you actually made a study of it's methodologies, if not then I must question your defence in it's confidence. As it turns out I've just finished reading and studying its components and supplements. It is interesting isn't it, that the author makes a very definite point that Sigma 5 is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics,and indeed it is in particle physics, the even go as far as comparing this web the Higgs boson discovery which, as you will see, it's not only not close it's incorrect to assume that the methodologies used are even similar because of the nature of the information used to arrive at the Sigman 5 threshold, remember the results of any experiment is only as good as the data you input into that experiment.

My impression is as follows:
The study appears to have the problem, just as I expected and mentioned in an earlier comment, that relates to Sigma 3 and Sigma 5 boundaries to the probabilities arrived at in the study; the experiment appears to be designed in a manner that doesn't necessarily conform to natural variances, this is another problem because it makes individual elements in the design of the experiment difficult to distinguish. Because of that fact, I see that there is no real distinguishing in the study between the existence of a signal and the resulting magnitude of the effects thereof. That is hardly reassuring and doesn't bode well for the overall confidence purported in the study.

Another problem I noticed was that the attempt Santer made to detect an Anthropogenic pattern is associated models with Anthropogenic and natural forcing within the period between 1979 and 2018, indeed he used two very different models, one up to 2006 and the other afterwards to 2018. Thus the conclusion look almost exactly like historical models than a Null Hypothesis, in other words, as I have mention several times, the conclusion reached matches, in perfect sync, with the predetermined baseline premise, thus the conclusion of an Anthropogenic pattern almost indistinguishable from the algorithmic baseline with little deviation from the premise. That's as bad as having every government climate agencies from different parts of the world reporting the exact same patterns in climate cycles which simply can't happen in reality but with the magic of computer generated data-sets that is now the scientific norm.

So what they have detected is not an actual Anthropogenic pattern in the atmosphere itself but an Anthropogenic pattern that fits the existing climate models that have, as their algorithmic premise, the baseline of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Thus, what Santer had done its entirety exempt, through the construction of the experiment itself, any nature-only comparator as a control for all known natural warming mechanisms and thus forcing.

Another interesting point, and this is beginning to look a lot like the now discredited Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” fraud, who also haired to be involved with the Climategate email scandal as was Santer, is the manner in which Santer used a 200 year control, using 36 Climate models formulated on the baseline premise that rather than AGW being a hypothetical, it was programmed into those models as actual fact, that's why all those models missed their own predictive stance. So Santer used those 36 models on the same 10x10 grid format then on top of that they detrended each model before averaging them up. That methodology could be considered questionable.

Another problem is that the author provides absolutely no explanation why he appears to believe that post-1979 natural temperature patterns serve as a creible comparator when the one he used doesn't even conform to the IPCC AR5 series on natural variability, much less far more credible source information.
Essentially, Santer detrended each gridcell which remove patterns of natural variability thereby artificially increasing the temperature of the post 1979 comparator. Read the assumption in on page 10 in the study's supplement, is there in black and white:

“Our assumption regarding the adequacy of model variability estimates is critical. Observed temperature records are simultaneously in?uenced by both internal variability and multiple external forcings. We do not observe “pure” internal variability, so there will always be some irreducible uncertainty in partitioning observed temperature records into internally generated and externally forced components. All model-versus-observed variability comparisons are affected by this uncertainty, particularly on less well-observed multi-decadal timescales.”

So the assumptions in this study completely hinged on the degree of quality of the comparator, but by detrending the control runs the one certain thing they did accomplish was the artificial degradation of all natural variability patterns as a comparator. On top of that severe misguided decision, they depended solely on models that are built, not upon natural variability, but solely upon a pattern based again on a greenhouse warming pattern which are all created to match that premise rather than observable trends, past and present.

Thus, once again, as expected, we have yet another example of a baseline premise bias.

@Daryl

Your disadvantage is that you question nothing and like many through the ages relied upon the weight of what you are told by the "experts". Have you ever seen just how many times in history the experts have ended up being totally wrong?

Now back to this Santer Study:

Santer’s Study, it turns out it's little more than a dish of Red Herring prepared for the gullible, it does far more to encourage skepticism than belay it, all one need do is read it in it's entirety to see it doesn't boaster the cause of the AGW hypothesis or their agenda. After reading the rather laborious paper is far easier to see what it doesn't prove than what it does.

Not only does it appear that the concept behind the study is bogus but so too are the methodologies.The 36 models used in the paper are pre-tuned by tweaking poorly constrained parameterizations which has always allowed modelers a huge degree of leeway in choosing how they configure high-sensitivity thereby their parameter choice is little more than a convenience.

Just as Hanson et al 2002 openly admitted, although the AGW tribe still fails to grasp, Hansen makes nobones about the lack of quality within climate models because, as he said: “models still can be made to yield a wide range of sensitivities by altering model parameterizations”.

The fact that parameterization (GUESSING) is a wide occurrence in the current novel field of AGW climate science should be no surprise, except to the casual gullible observer, since based on audits as far back as 2011, Weather reporting stations have been moved or decommissioned over the years, breaking data continuity, and many stations don't meet the NWS standards for placement, being influenced by nearby blacktop surfaces, air conditioning exhausts, and other features that weren't there when the stations were originally constructed. Meaning that these proponents of AGW full in the gaps through “parametrization” or guessing. A recent study of both satellite and ocean buoys has found that more often than not, much of the data contains instrumentation artifacts, meaning data corruption has been occurring for years due to either improper calibration or instrumentation failure and yet this type of data is what determines the projections on climate.

So what Santer and numerous others in the AGW camp has done, as clearly documented in the thousands of emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University, was to almost completely abandon earlier accepted physics based work on natural forcing and variabilities in favor of arbitrarily tweaking data to reconcile model output. Even though the IPCC itself exposed “Dozens of instances where WWF reports have been cited as the sole authority for contentious claims.” That's one reason that Pachauri was forced to resign head of the IPCC, as stated in an internal memory: “His position is becoming untenable by the day as the UN IPCC will continue to leach credibility while he remains in charge”

it was exposed, yet pretty much ignored that "Current climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming" Dr.Roy Spencer. What that means is all their

This means that their “natural forcing” runs are equally convenient mythologies, based more on their own biases and expectations than any scientific reality.

If that is their “control” for these calculations the result in simply one of induction reflecting modelers’ choices, since an inflationary AGW bias is built into the models used. This Santer study does nothing more than affirm what we already know the models were created for in the first place, and bringing in Satellite data is nothing more than yet another hat-trick seeking to lend legitimacy but as seen in the study it falls to accomplish that feat.

@Daryl

No, it appears you believe only what you are told to believe, of course, that has been a common mistake throughout history. People beliving what they are told to believe without ever questioning the logic of what they are told to believe. The expert defense has always been the bane of rational thought. It's almost as bad as the defense "I was just following orders".

Science must be, above all else, logical in it's construction and methodologies. As such logic must be a weighted on evidence, most of which much be based on the physics of the known universe combined with obsevsraton.

As such, the AGW Community can't logically explain a great deal of their own science sufficiently enough to make it compelling.

For instance, it is impossible for them to explain the following observable evidence that CO2 was at greaterly reduced levels in the past and yet the Earth experienced higher temperatures with habitable lands in the recent past history of humans.

Please show me a single AGW explanation that can logically and scientifically address this:

40 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were 200 ppm, less than half of today’s concentration, tree remains have been discovered up to 2,100 feet above the modern tree line in the Russian Altai mountains. This means that temperatures were about 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today and it was at that time that humanity enjoyed an explosion of diverse Flora and Fauna, as well as new Paleolithic technologies brought on an advancing warning period.

If CO2 was the warning mechanism then correlation between 200ppm and a very warm Earth shows absolutely no connection to the above period 40,000 years ago or the period less than 9000 years ago as stated below.

Zhokhov Island in the Siberian High Arctic today exhibits inhospitably severe climate conditions, desolate tundra, and year-round pack ice in the surrounding sea. 9000 years ago this same island was warm enough to host waterfowl species, birch trees, and year-round human residents who hunted polar bear and reindeer.

Throughout the historic record we see a warning period that preceded the rise in CO2 Levels, not the other way around. That makes scientific sense because we know that a warning Earth and oceans releases CO2 while a cooling Earth and ocean sequester CO2, So, the question is what causes the Earth and oceans to warm releasing CO2 and vice-versa? Obviously, it can't be CO2 that actually prompts the warning/cooling mechanism. If CO2 drove warming or cooling, we wouldn't see what we see in the climate record. We would see just the opposite.

In the relative recent past we have less than half the CO2 levels as we do now and yet, a juxtaposition of mechanics. High temperatures, very low CO2 Levels with habitable lands that have not been habitable since, even with double the C02ppm levels as we have today, those lands that were inhabited thousands of years ago are still not nor will they be habitable anytime in the distant future, even if CO2 levels double from present levels.

Now unless it can be scientifically proven that, by some extraordinary feat, that suddenly, within the last 150 years the entire physics of molecular matter has somehow been totally transformed to act differently than it has for millions, perhaps billions of years, then I consider a science that promotes such a hypothesis asinine in the extreme.

The "Experts" have brought us many great discoveries, but the "Experts" have also brought us theories that have been totally incorrect even though at the time ever other "Expert" jumped on the theoretical band wagon. Case in point, the Y2K theory was so scientifically compelling that Governments, multinational companies, universities and Scientific "Experts" prepared for this global disaster. Governments around the world changed policies, set up panels and prepared for an event that never happened. Hell, it was only this year that the government stopped funding it's Y2K Reporting.

There are literally thousands of examples of "Experts" that were just as certain about their theories as the ones you believe and they were absolutely and totally wrong! Their mistaken theoretical certainty was costly. Now, of you look at some of your "Experts" today who are certain about global warming, some of those same "Experts" were just as certain about global cooling, you should go back and read what the "Experts" were saying and read the books and studies they published.

I've lived long enough to see the cyclical phenomena of human Scientific error that is closely related to hubris, especially in the field of science. Scientists, not unlike politicans, ease into myopic haze especially when focused on one theory or issue. It is a common trait of expertise.

@Daryl

Once again you've shown that you have no basis on which you can rebut any of the comments I've made, you can't defend your position except with the simplistic rebuttal of the"Experts", as you have been shown that defense is fraught with hundreds if not thousands of examples of Expert Errors throughout history. I base my position on the logic of observational evidence, the mechanics of accepted physics, the physical characteristics of atmospheric gases, paleontological evidence and yes, even some amazing scientists with impeccable reputations, unlike Santer, Mann and Hansen who have been exposed as manipulators of data, fraud in the case of Michael Mann. I trust the research of scientists like Spencer, the minds of men like Richard Feynmam, Maurice Newman, Denis Rancourt, Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, Ivar Giaever, Don Easterbrook, Tim Ball, Bob Carter, John Casy, John Coleman among thousands of other scientists, some of whom are even NASA and NOAA scientists, many of whom have been awarded accolades in Science, including the Nobel Prize Winners.

If therefore, I believe I do so only after researching the evidence presented, I've read a great number of scientific studies on the subject on both sides of the issue of climate change and by doing so I base my opinion upon just how compelling that evidence relates to both historical and mondern facts, on the nature of physics, chemistry and the Earth sciences.

What you don't realize it's that for the last 3 or 4 decades there have been literally 10s of thousands of highly esteemed climate scientists who have researched the theory and, after conducting research deduced that the Theory of AGW completely missed the mark as a valid hypothesis.
In 2007 there were 700 top scientists in the field who reported to the US Senate their dissent over man-made global warming claims, later there were over a thousand who presented their dissent in 2008 before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland and before the United Nations Climate Conference in Cancun in 2010, can the dissent of over 31,000 top American Scientists. So, despite your belief, this dissent is not merely some outliner, it consists of some of the most brilliant and we'll respected mines in the Scientific world. By the way, did you know that there are 20 times more dissenting scientists than make up all the scientists within the IPCC!

Can you say the same, just how many peer-reviewed papers and studies have you both read and researched on the subject, on both sides of the issue. Let us see just which one of use believes because we are told what to believe and which one of us has actually delved deep into the issue for the last 3 or 4 decades. Tell me, can you cite the scientists and their papers on each side of the issue that you have researched? If not then I think you have answered the question of just which one of us is simply believing what they are told. That should be a wake up call for you, perhaps you have diagnosed your own cognitive bias and have just chosen to project it on another.

@Daryl

Here are the opinions of experts, some are also IPCC Scientists. You may eventually conclude that you need to use discernment, never believe anything from the mainstream media, question everything. The following should, if you are really interested in knowing and understanding the myriad of factors involved with this subject, open your eyes to what is going on behind the scene of the issue of the AGW hypothesis, trim the actual scientists that research both indepently and within the framework of the IPCC itself, as you will see it's not as settled as you have been led to believe. Many of the scientists were once working for the IPCC, what could have changed their minds, what could create their current skepticism to the point that they would cut ties with the most powerful international science and policy agency in the world?

If after reading what these experts, even experts from the IPCC itself said and you still don't think you need to question then oh well, but if you are intellectually honest why yourself you will have to concede that questioning the AGW theory is not only warranted but also prudent.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal - - which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!"

[Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium."

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth’s magnetic field.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lui?s Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, has published several peer-reviewed studies in biochemistry. Mumper's presentation was titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Updated December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I
know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

@Daryl
Fair enough, however concerns as you will find out it's not science. I just sent a short version of the lack of consent, even among IPCC scientists, I'm sure that might surprise you and the growing number of dissenters even among scientists who once accepted the possibility of the AGW theory, even IPCC scientists.

@Daryl
Let me ask, for shits and giggles, have you ever looked at the USHCN temperature charts? I think I know the answer. If you look at the verified temperature over the past century you find that instead of the number of days reaching 95 degrees or above increasing they are decreasing, now think about that out of your GroupThink box. The number of days over 95 degrees is now 36% fewer than there was recorded in the 1930s. The longest continual daily temperature record is at a monastery in Germany, I think it's Saint Albins, for over 130 years the monks there have recorded temperature three times a day... Guess what you don't see? You don't see a drastic warning in the last 130 years, you do see short periods such as in the late 1930s and 1940s, then again in the late 1950s, then a cooling in the 1970s, then another warning in the late 1980s through the 1990s, then what AGW call the Global Warming Hiatus since it's been cooling for the last 19 years, which they have desperately attempted to wish away with every kind of cockamamie theory possible.

@Republicae

Just to say, this is my first hour in this group. Looking at climate change topic as a test to see what kind of group it is. Happy to see some scientific literacy here.

@Daryl

So with all the intricacies within in the climate, the multitude of variables inherent within the entire climate system, which must include atmospheric, volcanic, plat-tectonics, Co2 sensitivity, the physical properties of all atmospheric gas and the interaction between them, along with the solar variations, cosmic rays, cloud cover, insects such as termites, the global population of humans who expel 40,000 ppm of CO2 every second, the orbit of the Moon and Earth and the orbit around the sun and will as the cyclical progression of the sun through the Milky Way, fossil fuel emissions, ocean degassing, Co2 sequestation, plant life and cover, along when a myriad of other factors that Sigma 5 confidence level included all of those factors to arrive at that level of confidence. If those variations were not included then it is utterly impossible to arrive at such a conclusion.

Do you know what is involved to reach a confidence interval of 90% to 95% Sigma 5, with just one unknown factor, much less millions if not billions or more of unknown factors that are present within the climate system itself, it is humanly impossible at this early stage in our understanding of the system and yet we are told that is solved, case-closed. A Sigma 5 measure of a single element in a scientific experiment means, in astonishing terms, that single experiment would have to be repeated 3.5 million times in order to reach a strong conclusion and confidence level approaching a 90% to 95% interval. Now, if you can show me the evidence that experiments were conducted on such a vast scale to reach a Sigma 5 interval level of confidence, that included all the above listed variables and the unknown values that must be included to reach a Sigma 5 confidence I would consider that to be one of the most miraculous feats in the history of man-kind. The time scale alone to even conduct such an intricate degree of experimentation, with all the inclusions required to reach such a degree of confidence is astronomical to the 10 power.

Sorry, but so far I'm not impressed.

BTW, I carry a CO2 monitor wherever I go, just for fun, I attended a conference a few months ago and do you know what the sustained level of CO2 Was in that large room? 9000 ppm!

Something to think about is that the 5 mayor CO2 Monitoring Stations just do happen to be located on or near either active Volcanos, such as the main station on Mauna Loa, or adjacent to a generstor that is run 365 days a year burning jet fuel at the Antarctic South Pole Observatory, interesting don't you think?

I've noticed that you feel back on the etherial "expert" defense rather than rebut the points made by commentators, it might be more helpful to the debate if you actual had rebuttals to the points as commented upon.

@Daryl

The problem is that the climate experts you are relying on face absolutely no bad consequences for being wrong! They still have their jobs and their funding etc.

Whereas the pilots you fly with and the doctors you consult face very real consequences if they are wrong.

Your pilots and doctors like bridge engineers are more trustworthy.