Climategate

[steelish]

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.

[Thorne]

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

I'll go along with you here. I also don't think there's enough evidence to say we are the sole cause. The problem is far too complex to say that. There are things we still don't know about the climate and what effects certain things have upon it.

But I also feel that the evidence FOR global warming is strong, and the evidence that our CO2 emissions are adding to the problem is just as strong. Doing something about that is in all of our interests. Letting governments take the lead, though, is suicidal.

[Thorne]

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

[steelish]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

And I've never denied that there is general global warming going on either. Nor will I deny it when the earth starts a cooling trend....

What I am against is all the political crap surrounding the issue - that, and the "theory" that man is the cause of it all.

[DuncanONeil]

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And even before it became politically popular to jump on this particular band wagon, not to mention gravy train, people were working hard on alternative energy means.
The Government rather than actually investing in these people are simply stamping their collective foot and saying you WILL use less of whatever I tell you because I know what is best!
Never mind that I know nothing of the subject! (i.e. 7,000,000 degrees at the Earth's core)

[DuncanONeil]

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

[DuncanONeil]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

Suggestion.
NAGW or NON-AGW

[leo9]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

[steelish]

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

Yes. Al Gore, Barak Obama, John Holdren, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Harry Reid and many, many more

[DuncanONeil]

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

What is the arbitrary data point 0.0?
Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

[leo9]

Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

[leo9]

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

[denuseri]

Just when we had allmost reached a consensus of sorts in a forum thread....sighs.

[leo9]

Oh, and here's a funny thing. You know when people say "Yes, OK, the deniers are funded by the oil industry, but who funds the environmentalists, eh? Tell us that?"

Here's the answer, and it's not what you expected...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1978770.html

[denuseri]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.

[Thorne]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.

It's because they are all people. <sigh> Well, sooner or later the insects are going to take over the planet anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

You made an assumption about what I looked at.
In case you came up with a solid source I checked the below reference link. From there I went to four other links, two of which claiming to be data, and have the same result. The information has already been massaged and there is a reference point of 0.0 that has no meaning.
Therefore we remain in the same place accepting as data the material that someone else has decided is sufficient to prove their point.

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

[DuncanONeil]

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

Low blow! I never even suggested such a thing.

[steelish]

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green. Members sitting on the board of directors include representatives from Green for All (Van Jones co-founded), SEIU, AFL-CIO, Goldman Sachs and Enterprise Community Partners.


Al Gore
Al Gore’s main claim to fame is his role in our nation’s history, as Vice President of United States. Prior to his role in the White House, Gore served eight years in the US House of Representatives, and two terms as a U.S. Senator. In more recent times his environmental activism has made him a proponent of spreading the green way of life. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, warned people of the serious dangers of global warming, climate change and the future of our Earth. Critics have noted several significant errors in his movie ranging from, the drowning of polar bears to the melting of snow on Kilimanjaro and drying of Lake Chad. As the Chairman of the Board for the Alliance for Climate Protection, his lifestyle is not always representative of a greener good. Under speculation for years, he’s been given the nickname “carbon billionaire” for making money off his preaching of carbon emissions into the environment. Gore is also the co-founder of the private investment firm, Generation Investment Management. He holds an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard University .

Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs is a publicly held global investment banking and securities firm. Unlike a traditional bank, Goldman connects investors and money to the businesses and governments in need of it. In 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a 10% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC.

The Joyce Foundation
A private U.S. foundation which provides funding and support to initiatives focusing on education, environment, and employment in the Great Lakes region. The Joyce Foundation was established in 1948 by Beatrice Joyce Kean of Chicago. Since its inception the Foundation has made grants of more than $600 million. Some of those grants include $1.1 million to Richard Sandor in 2000-2001 to create the Chicago Climate Exchange; $175,000 in 2008 to the Tides Center for the Apollo Alliance; and $200,000 in 2009 to Enterprise Community Partners to launch the Emerald Cities Collaborative.
Former Board of Directors’ members include President Barack Obama (1994-2002) and Valerie Jarrett (2003-

President Barack Obama
Barack H. Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008, and sworn in on January 20, 2009. Before becoming President, he served four short years in the U.S. Senate. He cut his political teeth as an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004. Active in the Chicago community, he served on the board of the progressive Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002. The future President was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1983. The son of black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he was mainly raised by his grandmother in Hawaii. His father wrote of socialist policies as an economist for the Kenyan government, while his mother identified with Marxism.

Richard Sandor
Richard Sandor is the Chairman and founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only voluntary trading system of greenhouse gases in North America. He also serves as Chariman of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) and Executive Chairman of Climate Exchange, PLC.
Sandor is also a research professor at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University where he teaches environmental finance. He’s the former Chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Clean Air Committee and vice president and chief economist of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

Chicago Climate Exchange
A U.S. corporation, the CCX is the only trading system for greenhouse gases in North America. The idea of Chairman & CEO Richard Sandor, CCX was created through $1.1 million in grants from the Joyce Foundation. It’s trading officially launched in 2003. Since then, the CCX has grown to include 300 members worldwide. CCX, along with the European Climate Exchange (ECX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX) were operated by Climate Exchange, PLC until April 2010 when the company was sold to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for $606 million.

Climate Exchange, PLC
Climate Exchange (CLE) is a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange. Its three core businesses are the European Climate Exchange (ECX), Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX). The company is also developing in China, Canada and Australia. CLE was sold to InterContinental Exchange (ICE) in April 2010 for $606 million. ICE previously held a 4.79% stake in CLE.

InterContinental Exchange
InterContinental Echange (ICE) is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. Based in Atlanta, ICE operates trading platforms and clearing houses globally for agricultural, credit, currency, emissions and energy markets. Established in 2000, the company’s goal was to “transform OTC energy markets by providing an open, accessible, around-the-clock electronic energy marketplace to a previously fragmented and opaque market.”

Generation Investment Management (GIM)
Generation is a privately owned investment company with offices in London and New York. The company invests in global, public entities with an emphasis on climate. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. GIM had a 2.98% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC, which operated the Chicago Climate Exchange. InterContinental Exchange (ICE) purchased Climate Exchange, PLC in April 2010 for $606 million.

David Blood
Along with Gore, David Blood co-founded Generation Investment Management and acts as the firm’s Senior Partner. Blood is the former co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. After growing up in Brazil, he graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Hamilton College and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

Franklin Raines
The disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO resigned in 2004 amid a SEC investigation into the company’s accounting practices. Raines inflated earnings, costing the company about $9 billion. Despite his actions, he walked away making close to $90 million in pay and stock during his 5 years at the company. A year after his resignation, a U.S. patent was approved for a “System and method for residential emissions trading.” Both Raines and Fannie Mae were named on the patent. Raines currently sits on the board of trustees of Enterprise Community Partners. He formerly served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998 during the Clinton Administration.

Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae is a government sponsored company that was created by Congress in 1983. It works with mortgage brokers to create “affordable” mortgages for home owners. Since 2008, Fannie Mae has received $137 billion in federal aid. The Treasury Department has agreed to fund Fannie Mae through 2012. Its brother company is Freddie Mac.

Enterprise Community Partners
Enterprise is a private company dedicated to helping individuals and families find affordable homes. Enterprise claims to have the first national green building program specializing in affordable housing. The Enterprise Green Communities’ goal is “to fundamentally transform the way we think about, design and build affordable homes” by providing funding and technical assistance to developers to create low-income housing which is environmentally friendly. It’s also an advocate for federal policy on affordable housing and community development.

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green.

Joel Rogers
Joel Rogers is the man behind the curtain. Well known throughout the world of political activism, he’s practically a stranger to the public . His main causes revolve around the redistribution of wealth through a green society. The University of Wisconsin professor is the creator of the Apollo Alliance, dedicated to the promotion of clean energy and the creation of green-collared jobs. Championed by John Sweeney, Andy Stern and Van Jones, Rogers also serves on the board of Emerald Cities Collaborative and acts as the director of COWS. Additionally, he’s a senior policy adviser to Green for All, a group under the wing of Van Jones. Rogers co-founded the now defunct New Party, a progressive political party started in the early 1990s which was sympathetic to the advancement of labor unions. The party dissolved in 1997 and was reinvented a year later as the Working Families Party. Rogers’ wife, Sarah Siskind, a partner at the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, defended Acorn in 2002.

Apollo Alliance
Inspired by the Apollo space program, the alliance is made up of business and community leaders looking to “catalyze a clean energy revolution.” The Alliance created the “New Apollo Program,” an economic plan of its priorities including a “cap and invest” program to reduce carbon emissions. The Program claims it will generate and invest $500 billion into the economy over the span of ten years. The Alliance released its program to coincide with the Obama Administration’s call for a stimulus plan. Because of this, the Alliance is said to have strongly shaped the $787 billion Stimulus Plan in 2009. The Apollo Alliance is a project of George Soros’ non-profit Tides Center. The Apollo Alliance is also the group who authored the Stimulus Package.

Green for All
Green for All is a national organization dedicated to breaking the cycle of poverty through a green economy. It works alongside government, grassroots and labor organizations to increase job opportunities in green industry. Green for All was co-founded by former White House Environmental Adviser Van Jones.

[steelish]

In January of this year, there was yet another scandal with the IPCC, the climate arm of the UN. It seems they were sourcing the imminent melting of glaciers to an off handed comment in a phone conversation, NOT peer reviewed science.

At the time, the head of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri said “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago.” Unfortunately for him, it’s now been revealed he was actually told about it months earlier, reportedly in November.

This was before Copenhagen, and in the midst of the breaking Climategate scandal, and the IPCC couldn’t afford yet another mark on their record at such a crucial time. Is this why they didn’t talk about the problems with their glacier sourcing back then? The IPCC denies this, of course, but were they subtly tipping their hand?

Yet another climategate?

11/26/09: IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

12/04/09: IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

The discrepancy goes back to November 26th, 2009. In their attempt to blow off Climategate, IPCC head Pachauri released this statement, printed on the New York Times website. It’s basically what you’d expect—for example:

It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in I.P.C.C. assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns. It is important for me to clarify that the I.P.C.C. as a body follows impartial, open and objective assessment of every aspect of climate change carried out with complete transparency.

But the next line was key:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

However, go to the IPCC website today, and you’ll find a link to the exact same 418 word statement, but with one difference.

IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

Strangely enough, the new document with the change from “entirely” to “mainly” was uploaded 8 days after the original. What happened here? Is this some sort of mistake? Did the Times just screw it up? Or was it an intentional change to hide the reports lack of peer review? Those who follow how much the IPCC, its supporters, and people like Al Gore know how often they tout their peer review purity.

To review:

On 11-26-2009 NY Times: "IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature..."
On 12-4-2009 IPCC website: "IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature..."

So, did they change this knowing what was coming with Glaciergate?

Or perhaps they knew about even more. Now we learn the UK Telegraph has found two additional newly discovered sourcing debacles. The IPCC claims about melting ice in the Alps, the Andes, and in Africa come not from peer reviewed scientific literature—but from Climbing Magazine.

It’s sort of like “Runners World” for mountain climbing. Amazingly, that’s the better of the two sources. The other source was –I kid you not---a student dissertation --written by a climate change activist ----while he was studying for a degree…in GEOGRAPHY.

And…now…another: “A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.”

While all of this is going on, the head of the IPCC isn’t resigning---he’s releasing an explicit romance novel. Not kidding.

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

[Thorne]

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

Good questions! And disturbing reports. If these allegations are true it will likely deal a death blow to the IPCC's credibility, and justly so. IF they are true.

The change from "entirely" to "mainly" does not bother me, barring any evidence of deliberate lies. It's quite possible that whoever wrote the report changed it after learning that it was inaccurate. The change coming before anyone else found out about these other reports leans in that direction at least, barring any other evidence.

But the idea of relying on unsubstantiated reports from non-professional witnesses and anecdotal evidence flies in the face of the scientific method, and these allegations must be investigated fully and quickly.

Even if the allegations are true, I still don't think this is a back-breaker for Global Warming, but perhaps it will make governments around the world pull back on stupid and probably ineffective legislation about it.

[Ultraprene]

The evidence for climate change isn't just in weather records for the past hundred years or so, but in understanding the physics. The Earth "normally" has a temp about 30 deg C above that you would calculate from the Planck Theory of heat radiation. That is due to Greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gases with optical absorption bands around 10-15 microns. During the industrial age we have nearly doubled the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the amount is about half that released by fossil fuel burning. (the rest was mostly absorbed int he oceans making them more acidic.) Isotopic analysis shows that the added CO2 came from fossil fuel. I recommend an excellent article in the Jan. 2011 "Physics Today."

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?

[Thorne]

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?

Only if you can't admit that windows can be broken by baseballs. After all, have you ever seen a window broken by a baseball? Do you have any proof that the baseball can actually break the window? No, no, actually testing this theory by throwing baseballs at windows is not acceptable, because everyone knows that no one deliberately throws baseballs at windows in real life. I'll only accept real evidence of a baseball being hit by a kid and breaking a window. What? Which video is that? Oh, that's an obvious fake, made by a window maker. In league with the government to raise our taxes to pay for all the windows that aren't going to get broken anyway. It's all a conspiracy, don't you know.

[Ultraprene]

There is, of course the Milankovitch Theory of glaciation cycles but this describes long-term effects over thousands of years, not the rapid change we are observing. And the Milankovitch theory would have us in a slow cooling phase now. However, if you can document your "theory" write it up and submit it to a scientific journal. That's what the way legitimate theories are presented, not by just spouting any idea that pops into one's head without any supporting evidence. Put another way, if you want to join a scientific debate, you must do it by the accepted rules of the "game." Tell you what. If you send me your manuscript I will help you get it published. I am a member of several scientific societies with appropriate journals.

[Ultraprene]

Actually, there were news stories in the US as well, including the scientific newsletters. It is true that a few of the thousands of scientists participating in the IPCC were sloppy in their methods. Shame on them. Still, their errors do not overthrow the fundamental science. There are dishonest or sloppy people in every profession but it does not mean that everything coming from that profession is false. I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

[Thorne]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

I've done thermodynamic calculations in the past, and I've measured infrared absorption, as well as UV absorption, of many compounds, including carbon dioxide. Not familiar with the Planck-Boltzmann theory, theory, though. A quick search comes up with the Fokker-Planck-Boltzmann equation, which at first blush does not appear to have any direct bearing on climate research, though it does deal with the relationship between energy and temperature. The math is way over my head.

So, does this mean it's okay for me to comment on Climate change?

[denuseri]

Here is a recent report conserning climate change that some may find interseting:

Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the average global sea level by as much as five feet this century, an authoritative new report suggests.
The study by the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, is one of the most comprehensive updates on climate change in the Arctic, and builds on a similar assessment in 2005.
The full report will be delivered to foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations next week, but an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in.
One mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, which reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists "but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years," AMAP said.
The report also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change.
The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years.
Its assessment also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise — one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations.
The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.
That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica.
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," AMAP said in the executive summary.
The organization's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic — the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland — on threats to the Arctic environment.
The findings of its report — Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic — will be discussed by some of the scientists who helped compile it at a conference starting Wednesday in the Danish capital, Copenhagen.
In the past few years, scientists have steadily improved ways of measuring the loss of ice into the oceans.
In research reported in March in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, U.S. and European scientists used two independent methods to corroborate their findings: the on-the-ground measurement of ice thickness and movements using GPS stations and other tools, and the measurement of ice mass through gravity readings from satellites.
That team, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, projected that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would itself raise sea levels by about 6 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. Adding in other factors — expansion of the oceans from warming and runoff from other glaciers worldwide — would raise sea levels a total of some 13 inches (32 centimeters) by 2050, they said.
They did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties.

Currents, winds and other forces would make sea-level rise vary globally, but Bangladesh, Florida and other such low-lying areas and coastal cities worldwide would be hard hit.
The AMAP report said melting glaciers and ice sheets worldwide have become the biggest contributor to sea level rise. Greenland's ice sheet alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) of sea-level rise observed annually between 2003 and 2008, AMAP said.
It said the yearly mass loss from Greenland's ice sheet, which covers an area the size of Mexico, increased from 50 gigatons in 1995-2000 to more than 200 gigatons in 2004-2008. Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. AMAP projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.

[Thorne]

And all the deniers will see in this report is this comment:

Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

And they will say, "See? Even the experts admit they don't know, therefore there is no global warming!"

Nice post, denuseri. Maybe there are still a few ultra-right-wingers out there who will see this and realize that they were wrong all along.

I won't hold my breath.

[denuseri]

Im actually begining to change my former views conserning the reasons for the current global warming cycle that appears to be happening as well.

Though the topic is highly politicalized however I do not see it as a right/left issue.

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.
Im also starting to think that the majority of the claims made against this is generated by those whose primary intrests isnt saving the world for our posterity so much as squeezing every last bit of profit out of the ground despite all information pointing to that being the wrong way to go.

[Thorne]

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.

Welcome to the club. I was the same way. It was obvious to me that warming was taking place, but not so obvious that humans were the cause. I've had to change my mind as well. There's just too much evidence to deny it.