@westside-steve said:

Yeah? Look any reasonably intelligent person can read the distillatipn of the scientific evidence make a judgement. You have spent a lot of time love the fact that some of cals articles aren't written by scientists.

I never see you attack politicians who are on the same side as you.

Even if they are not scientist.

WSS

But I basically agree with you.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

It was a mistake for a different reason then what you or cal are thinking...

Yeah? Look any reasonably intelligent person can read the distillatipn of the scientific evidence make a judgement. You have spent a lot of time love the fact that some of cals articles aren't written by scientists.

I never see you attack politicians who are on the same side as you.

Even if they are not scientist.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

Yeah, it was a mistake posting that video. My bad. I should have realized that...

No, really it was wonderful.

Liberals always trump non liberals despite the degree.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

Uuuggghhhh.... And I shouldn't have expected any less.

All the other reports, facts, organizations... In one ear and out the other...

out of one butthole and down the toilet.

WSS

All the other reports, facts, organizations... In one ear and out the other...

Yet, woody, you use Bill Nye as YOUR expert?

good golly, miss molly - the JOKE is on you;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

No, I think when people are putting out full on reports about climate change and writing articles and shit, credentials matter. Bill Nye would probably agree here.

But, when it comes to just generally understanding what is going on, you don't need to be a climate scientist, which is what he is saying. If you have a sufficiently technical degree, you should be able to understand the science behind the issue. Engineer? Sure. Congreeman/woman? I'm not surprised...

Cal's list of "experts" were usually a mixed bag of these two groups, very little of which were anything near experts.

Among the actual experts, its still damn near a consensus.

She wanted to make the point, that since neither of them are climate scientists, whatever they could say wouldn't matter. "I don''t know what is going on, so you don't either." That's not true. You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the science. But if you're trying to propose new reports and findings, it would probably help.

I'd also consider a hierarchy of opinions on a scientific issue. The more related your field is to an issue, the more your opinion matters. Engineer over a congresswoman. Climate Scientist over an engineer. This is a climate issue, so we should focus on what the climatologist community is saying.

Kind of like how, on average, the more educated you are the less you believe in things like creationism.

WSS

which, flies in the face of scientific integrity. Truth is not a democratic vote. Fact is

not a "most of scientists agree".

That's a theory which has not been truly proven as fact, and has historically been rife with

controversy.

"it is what it is" .... it's a common theory with problems to the contrary of it, which scientists

cannot explain.

As in, absolutely no reason to "have to DO something liberal" about it. That's all.

@calfoxwc said:

A very small percentage of which actually have any experience in climatology. A smaller number if which that have published research

I've posted them.

Among actual experts, no.

It's being questioned more and more and more. For good reasons. There is no

"fact" about it.

It's tentative theory, greatly controversial. So the political "but we must do SOMETHING" is

dissapating into a foggy mist.

Never the genuine magic twanger revelations.

I'll attempt to put a long response together for your claims tomorrow. Even though Chris seems to be doing it already, like normal. Good luck sir

Nothing must ever be different than your agenda.

It must all fit, or you libs go into a snit.

Got it.

@calfoxwc said:

Briffa censored the data himself, and then was called out on it by his colleagues who were basically saying "your conclusion is correct, but the way you're burying data, people are going to shoot this thing down" which is what happened. The data from Yamal is used in only 3 out of the 12 main climate prediction models anyway, and if you disregard those, then the remaining 9 all reach the same conclusion.

@calfoxwc said:

The study you link to is of public opinion, which really doesn't matter in terms of science, and yet you just gloss over the "scientists believe with 95% certainty" part.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"Something about retirement apparently frees people up to say what they really believe. I retired early from NASA over seven years ago to have more freedom to speak my mind on global warming.

You might recall that after Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she (trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/3rd_trmm_conf/simpson.doc) admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

And who can forget NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem? After the outrage that ensued, I suspect he wishes he had never brought it up.

And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure. Even I wouldn’t go quite that far, since I use simple ones in mypublished research.

I remember the old days at NASA, when even John Theon was singing the same tune as most people at NASA were. Manmade global warming was a potentially serious threat, and NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

Global warming research was a relatively new field back then. Was Theon always skeptical, and just being a team player at the time? I don’t know. It could be that Dr. Theon, after watching 15 years of climate research go by, decided that he was no longer convinced that mankind was at fault for warming.

After all, there is some precedence for scientists changing their minds. One of today’s leading global warming alarmists is Stephen Schneider, who did a major about-face from the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. At least Theon didn’t write a book back then about how serious the global warming issue was, as Schneider did on global cooling.

And how many defections have we seen in the other direction — from the skeptics’ camp to the alarmists’ camp? Seems like it’s been a one-way street so far.

Theon now also supports what I have repeatedly said over the years. That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate. I personally don’t think we needed Hansen’s extremist views to get that accomplished, but it probably helped to some extent.

I asked NASA managers at the time, how can Hansen get away with saying whatever he wanted to? The answer was, “well…he’s not supposed to”.

You might think it’s OK for the lone scientist to warn everyone of impending planetary doom. But I consider it much closer to someone who makes a habit of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Forcing expensive energy on people will lead to death and suffering. These are very real threats, not theoretical like manmade global warming, and they exist today. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from — but I do care that a maximum number of people can afford it.

In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views. That was fine…if a little annoying. At least the flap Hansen caused has managed to force NASA to say that their scientists no longer have to march in lock-step on scientific issues. That’s a good thing.

I have to wonder…how many more scientists will be outing themselves as skeptics? While we may never constitute a majority, and many of us have differing views on the real causes of climate change, it only takes one of us to be right for the global warming house of cards to collapse.