Tired Of Being Scared About Hurricanes? Sue Al "Deep Pockets" Gore......

They should sue Al Gore. He's the one who has done the most to put the "BIG SCARE" in everyone about global warming, climate change, and hurricanes. Hire John Edwards to sue Al Gore......the saying is "go for the deep pockets" when filing a lawsuit.
Peter

Hotel Mogul Threatens Lawsuit Over Hurricane Expert's Gloomy Forecasts
Rosen: Fla. Lost Billions Of Dollars Because Of Incorrect Storm Outlook
POSTED: 5:11 pm EST November 29, 2007
UPDATED: 2:42 pm EST November 30, 2007

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Central Florida's most famous hotel owner, Harris Rosen, lashed out at hurricane expert Dr. William Gray for his gloomy storm predictions saying they have damaged state tourism.
Rosen said he believes Florida lost billions of dollars in business because of Gray's outlook and even threatened a lawsuit.
"Look, doctor, you've made these forecasts and you were wrong once," Rosen said. "You made the forecast and you were wrong twice. Are you going to continue to make these forecasts?"
The hotel mogul said surveys show 70 percent of guests not returning to his hotels cited hurricane fears as the reason why.

"I suspect it costs the state billions of dollars," Rosen said. "Five thousand people scheduled to attend my association meeting and I'm looking at Orlando and it is September or October, I may say, 'Why take a chance.'"
Rosen said if people would stop paying attention to Gray, more people would come to Central Florida, Local 6's Chris Trenkmann said.

Other business owners are angry at Gray's predictions.
John Smith, who runs Storm Stoppers, a plywood alternative company that has benefited from busy storm seasons, spends thousand of dollars when an active year is predicted.
"What we do is stock up," Smith said. "When there is a let down, we have all of our capital invested in materials and you know, we have to wait until the next big weather event."
More and more business owners said they prefer that prognosticators keep their outlooks to themselves.
"A local meteorologist would not last as long as some of these prediction artists have been in business," Smith said.

Gray responded to Rosen's complaint, saying anytime there is a catastrophic hurricane season like in 2004, there will be a slowing down or hesitancy to return to Florida, Trenkmann reported.
Gray, of Colorado State University, predicted 17 named storms with nine becoming hurricanes.
The 2007 storm count came short of Gray's predicted totals and no hurricanes came near Florida in 2007.
The last time Central Floridians dealt with a major hurricane was in 2004.
Hurricane season officially ends Friday.
Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.
source:

Global Warming Graphics

Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming.....New Data Shows

Here is another article from ICECAP summarizing the state of understanding of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The conclusion? As I have been saying all along, and many, many other scientists agree: Carbon emissions do not cause global warming.

Dispute the data, but please don't shoot the messenger.
Peter

from: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_emissions_dont_cause_global_warming/


Thursday, November 29, 2007
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming
Guest Blog by David Evans, Science Speak
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

• 1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
• 2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
• 3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The paper discusses how the ice core changes, missing greenhouse signature in the real data and the recent waning of the warming all suggest that carbon emissions are not behind the changes we have experienced in recent decades.
See larger image here.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then! See the full paper here.

David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. David is also a former believer in man-made warming who converted to skeptic.

Everything Under The Sun (erroneously) Blamed On Global Warming

The following also comes from ICECAP, see here: http://icecap.us/index.php
Peter



Nov 29, 2007
Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links)
By Christopher Alleva, American Thinker
Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, runs a website called numberwatch. He has compiled what has to be the most complete collection of links to media stories ascribing the cause of everything under the sun to global warming. He has already posted more than six-hundred links.

The site’s stated mission is to expose all the “scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers” Professor Brignell’s motto is “Working to Combat Math Hysteria.”

This exercise is not merely a lark to show the abject absurdity of this global warming nonsense. Brignell wrote a great book titled Sorry Wrong Number, The Abuse of Measurement on this very subject. Dr. Brignell is accepting additions to the list so if you have any send them along.

See the list of links here.
-->

Atmospheric Temperature and Rising CO2 Levels Do Not Correlate In Last Decade

The following short article illustrates the disconnect between atmospheric temperature and CO2 levels. I think everyone agrees that surface temperature measurements are of dubious validity for a variety of reasons. These include but are not limited to 1) calibration of instruments, 2) location of measuring stations, and 3) the urban heat island effect.

The following average atmospheric temperatures are derived from satellite measurements, thus they have a much greater sampling area, with calibrated instruments, are not subject to local variations, and thus these satellite temperature measurements are considered the most accurate measure of global atmospheric temperatures.

The article goes into more detail, but the key point here, that is so clearly shown in the second graph, is that in spite of steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels, the atmospheric temperature is not rising. This simple observation is completely counter to computer models and predictions of global warming as a result of burning fossil fuels and adding the resultant carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

If there is no significant recent atmospheric warming, then carbon dioxide emissions must not be a problem. Can anyone question this data, and its interpretation?

And by the way, the source of this article is from an excellent web site titled ICECAP and is located here: http://icecap.us/index.php

They have an impressive list of science advisors and contributors. I highly recommend you examine what they offer.
Peter

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Global Temperatures are Uncorrelated with Carbon Dioxide Trends This Last Decade
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Temperature peaked in 1998 and have shown no warming for a decade now. Many scientists have been remarking about this trend for several years but no one takes heed, preferring to believe models than actual data. Here is the satellite derived global temperature trend since 1979. Note the cooling globally near the volcanically active periods of the early 1980s and 1990s. Note also the warm spike associated with the super El Nino that seemingly marked the beginning of the end of the warm Pacific trend that began in 1978.

Note the subsequent cooling as a series of 3 La Ninas in 4 years helped cool the earth in the late 1990s. Temperatures rebounded a bit in the early 2000s with a slight rebound in the Pacific warmth, three El Ninos and a volcanic aerosol-free stratosphere, but the trend since 2001 has been flat and at a level considerably below the peak of 1998. This lack of warming has occurred despite the increases in carbon dioxide. Indeed, when comparing this satellite derived temperature trend the last decade with the carbon dioxide increases as seasonally adjusted from Scripps, we find NO CORRELATION (just 0.07 r squared!!!)
See larger image here.
Global warming is over. Man was never responsible.

See full blog here.

The Pain In Feel-Good Environmentalism; 6.5 Billion Dollars Worth In 2006 Alone!

Six and a half BILLION dollars given to environmental groups in 2006 alone! Wow, that buys a lot of lobbyists and votes and spews out a lot of propaganda. Is it any wonder they have been able to fool so many people about global warming? Is it any wonder why they continue with the scare tactics about climate change catastrophe so they can keep the donations flowing in? It would be humorous if were not so despicable.
Propaganda, aside, there is a downside to some of this activity, besides frivolous cruise ships sinking and polluting the sea off Antarctica, as described below.
Peter

The Pain in Feel-Good Environmentalism
Julie Walsh
September 19, 2007
Over six and a half billion dollars were given to environmental groups in 2006, according to the June 28, 2007 issue of “Chronicle of Philanthropy.” But how many of the good people who donated to these groups know that some of their money is used to thwart mining projects destined to help poverty-stricken people in poverty-stricken nations? The groups don’t publicize this fact.
For example, when you go on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) website you see lots of pictures of adorable animals and stories of WWF projects to save gorillas and macaws. But they don’t publicize the dirty fact that they are working to bring down a mining project in Madagascar, the world’s third poorest country.
Most U.S. citizens care about the United States’ reputation in the world. Yet we’re turning a blind-eye to the developing world’s increasing resentment towards us caused by First-World environmental groups, who seek to impose their green values on the developing world and bring down much-needed projects. In our arrogance, we use our own land for large office buildings, factories, and shopping malls, but we can’t allow them to use their own land for a desired mining project, consigning the world’s poorer nations to slow—and in some cases no—economic growth.
But as Snezhina Kovacheva states, “(E)nvironmental mitigation is a value-added good. As a country's wealth increases, its citizens recognize that a better environment enhances the quality of life. Accordingly, the population starts investing a larger portion of its greater resources into developing cleaner technologies.” As seen in the area of global warming, the United States was able to reduce its emissions (relative to GDP) further through energy efficiency, than those of the Kyoto-signers.

source:

Professor Philip Stott On Global Warming and Politics

I've been reading some of the entrys on Professor Philip Stott's blog and find them refreshing and enlightening. He has a unique perspective on the issue of global warming. I recommend everyone have a look. Here is a sample quotation:
Emeritus Professor Philip Stott writes:

“‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing
Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. In this
blog, I hope to be able to deconstruct the ‘myth’ in order to reveal its
more dangerous and humorous foibles and follies. I shall focus as much on the
politics as on the science.”

Peter

His blog is here:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog.html

Philip Stott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the British biogeographer. Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography [1] [2].

He appeared on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4.


[edit] Global warming
Stott regards himself as a Humeian 'mitigated sceptic' [14] on the subject of global warming. He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject. Also, he has researched on the construction of environmental knowledge, including global warming as a Barthesian myth, for over thirty years.
Stott has been critical of terms like 'climate sceptic' and 'climate-change denier'; he believes in a distinction between the science of climate change and what he asserts is the Barthesian myth [15] of global warming [16], saying,
"... the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate 'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm." [17] (see also his essay on environmental change and La Brea [18].)
Stott is also critical of organizations like the IPCC.
His attitude to climate change is best summed up in a central passage from a letter published recently in The Daily Telegraph (June 10, 2005) [19]:
"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma." For his views more generally on climate change, see [20].

[edit] Energy policy
Stott's "alternative Charter for a sound energy policy" begins with (what) we need are strong economies that can adapt to climate change and he proposes that the Kyoto Protocol be dropped because of "[I]ts ‘command-and-control’ economics which have no chance of working in the face of world economic growth, especially in the developing world." [21]. He believes that the Kyoto Protocol is moribund politically [22]. Stott is concerned that the UK is failing to address its core energy needs, which must involve a mix of clean coal, gas, and probably nuclear power [23]. Stott also encourages development of energy infrastructure in the developing world. He sees the alleviation of energy poverty, along with the need for clean water, as two of the most urgent world issues [24] He regards most renewables as helpful (although he is critical of wind power), but only marginal to the core requirements of an advanced society. [25].

[edit] Deforestation in the Amazon
Stott contested the research of a report in 2001 that predicted that by 2020 the forest would be 42% deforested.
"New research in Brazil suggests that around 87.5% of the previously mapped area of the Amazon remains largely intact and, of the 12.5% that has been deforested, one-third to one-half is fallow or in the process of regeneration," he said [26].
"This lungs of the earth business is nonsense; the daftest of all theories"
Stott teamed up with Patrick Moore in 2000 and made several appearances deposing deforestation research.
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years. That sounds like a very long time but, in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. Before then, there were hardly any rainforests. They are very young. It is just a big mistake that people are making." [27]

[edit] External links
Global Warming Politics Philip Stott's weblog covering global warming issues.
EnviroSpin Watch Philip Stott's discontinued weblog monitoring coverage of environmental issues and science in the UK media.
A Parliament of Things His main Web Site.
Philip Stott's Music Box His music site, from where you can download some of his compositions.
Journal of Biogeography final editorial. (this site requires cookies)
LobbyWatch article on Stott
Comment to Probiotech website, 2002
[28] Global Warming Is Not a Crisis - Opinion article on ABC News
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott"

Another Brave Scientist Tells The Truth About Global Warming.....

The following statement by another geologist (this time from New Zealand) is a well-said summary of the distortions of reality the public is being told concerning global warming. The best statement in this short article is:

"Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong."

This explains why so few scientists are willing to publicly dispute the idea that man is causing global warming and climate change. They are afraid. Political correctness is a powerful influence on peoples behavior. But we are now seeing more and more scientists willing to voice the truth.
Peter
(From the New Zealand Herald)

Chris de Freitas: Don't blame me for the heat
(Dr Chris de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland)

Greenpeace spokeswoman Susannah Bailey's attack on branches of the New Zealand business sector, which she accuses of continuing to plead grey on global warming, misses the key point. Political action on climate change is not a game to be played and won or lost, and Greenpeace does us a disservice by encouraging that view. Little does the public realise the debate over climate change usually conflates issues of science and politics.

The robustness (validity) or otherwise of the science underpinning the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the key to assessing the risk from human induced climate change issue. But seldom if ever are the uncertainties of the science discussed. Seldom if ever is the question asked: Where is the evidence for catastrophic climate change from human action?

Rather than search for the evidence, groups like Greenpeace defer to authorities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political entity which appears to have a monopoly on wisdom in global warming matters.

Rather than debate the issues, they attack those who disagree, using defamatory labels. Yet the opposite of scepticism is gullibility. The fanatical name calling and personal attacks expose the strong ideological elements that drive global warming alarmist thinking. It's as if the depth of passion is overcompensation for doubt and uncertainty. Why else would environmentalists squander so much effort trying to discredit individuals and organisations who disagree?

Few scientists are willing to put their head above the parapet, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, to paraphrase Voltaire, it is dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong.

Moreover, vote counting is a risky way to discover scientific truth. Scientific validity is not determined by a show of hands. Pronouncements from Greenpeace or the IPCC do not and cannot change the facts. No one doubts humans affect climate. The debate is whether the effects are "dangerous". There is no hard evidence that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by human activities are causing or will cause dangerous change to global climate.

The Earth's surface has warmed slightly over the last 150 years, but research shows that floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in frequency. The climate facts are well established and well recorded, but often ignored when it comes to global warming catastrophism:*

There have been four periods of global warming in the past 1500 years.* Data clearly show the Earth cooled during a recent 35-year period despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* In recent times, global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* Average global sea level rise has shown no acceleration over the past 300 years.*

And it is an uncontroversial fact that all climate models are unreliable, so their output is not evidence of anything.

Recent climate change is within natural variation, and although this in no way confirms that it is due to natural variation, climate history clearly demonstrates that natural variation can explain the moderate climate change we have seen up until 1998. One could argue that we should take the observed net 0.6C warming trend over the past 100 years seriously, but by itself it looks rather benign, and may even be beneficial.

Even if the signatories to the Kyoto protocol meet their commitment, the climate science community is unanimous on the view that its impact on global warming would be imperceptible.

The fact is that the Kyoto targets are not based on science. Taking into account the economic costs, the Kyoto Protocol could be worse than doing nothing. It fails to establish long-term goals based on science, it poses serious and unnecessary risks to national economies, and it is ineffective in addressing climate change because it excludes major parts of the world. There is a desperate need for balanced reporting to redress widespread misunderstanding of climate change and the role of human activities.

Source

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature, Data Clearly Shows....

Craig James is a Michigan meteorologist and here he explains his reasoning as to why atmospheric carbon dioxide does not drive, or control global warming.
Peter

Meteorologist Craig James explains the real CO2 sequence

In response to the many comments I have received recently questioning my position on global warming, I'd like to offer this summary:There are several possible causes for warming and cooling of the atmosphere on a global scale. Periodic astronomical cycles, such as the Milankovitch Cycles, solar variations, volcanic activity, the shift in phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Arctic Oscillation (AO), plus many others certainly all play a huge role. I have written about the natural oscillation of the oceans and their affects on temperatures in several posts on this site.

Of course the mainstream emphasis today is on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If I conducted a survey asking people whether the temperature rises first and then CO2 levels increase, or vice-versa, I'm sure we could all guess the prevailing opinion is that CO2 levels increase first. I think it is very important for everyone to understand, this is not the case.

I am not doubting that humans have been responsible for an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and that this CO2 increase may have contributed to some of the warming we have experienced by a process known as positive feedback. But it does seem as if the climate models overstate this positive feedback and several others such as those for water vapor. A close inspection of the temperature and CO2 records shows that the warming we see now should be much greater if CO2 was the dominant factor. To illustrate this, let me repost one of my previous articles called "Does the Earth Have a Temperature Regulator".

It seems to me as if there hasn't really been much attention given to the fact that CO2 increases occur AFTER the temperature begins rising and therefore cannot be the initial cause of global warming. Even the most vocal proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) acknowledge this fact. The web site Real Climate states:

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence
of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown)
process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also
causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the
whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even
further CO2 release.

They are well aware that CO2 does not cause the initial warming but they say it does amplify the warming once underway. The interesting thing to me though is what causes the warming to stop, even though CO2 is still RISING?

Take a look at this chart (above) from the Vostok ice core record over the last 460,000 years.

The second chart is a close up of the last 18,000 years (since the last glacial maximum).

The third chart is of the last 200 years, encompassing the industrial revolution. The charts were all taken from this web page.

Notice on all three charts the recent rapid rise in CO2 on the right hand side of the chart WITHOUT an equivalent rise in the temperature. There was a rise in temperature but you would expect it to be more if the response was linear. This seems to be good evidence that the temperature response to rising CO2 levels is logarithmic, not linear. A subsequent doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will not produce the amount of temperature increase the first doubling did.

But what is even more interesting to me can be seen on the first chart going back 460,000 years. There are five warm periods, or interglacials, on the chart. The current one has lasted the longest. Every time the temperature has warmed to more than 2 degrees Celcius above the mid 20th century benchmark (the 0 degree line) for a significant time, cooling followed. It appears that if the +2C threshold is exceeded for some period of time, a new glacial, or cooling, phase follows.

According to the authors of the web site where I got the chart:A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear.I think it is logarithmic, not linear or exponential as the authors suggest, meaning it will take much longer than 40 years to reach the +2C threshold. But once it reaches that threshold, what makes the temperature start to fall again, especially if CO2 levels are still rising? Does the earth have a built in temperature regulator? Does melting of the Arctic ice slow down the thermohaline circulation enough to initiate a new ice age? Or is the "iris effect" real as described in this article?

Whatever it is, there certainly seems to evidence from the Vostok ice core, which the AGW people accept, that the Earth will again regulate itself to prevent any runaway global warming."Will the increasing levels of CO2 override the historical pattern of a +2C threshold? I can't find an answer to that anywhere. Also, if you look again at the long term chart above, you will see that the ice ages do not begin every 100,000 years as the Milankovitch Cycles would predict. Wikepedia states:

The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in
particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000 year timescale, but
the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages.
Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked
to explain this discrepancy.

Another issue I want to emphasize has come about because of all of the concern regarding the low Arctic sea ice extent measured this fall. I can't state this strongly enough. THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN ARCTIC AIR TEMPERATURES AND ARCTIC SEA ICE!

Here (above) is a graph of Arctic air temperatures since 1880.The second chart is a graph of Arctic Sea Ice extent since 1900. The air temperatures in the Arctic were warmer in 1940 than now. The sea ice extent began to diminish in 1950 as air temperatures were going DOWN. If there is no correlation, there can be no causation.

Also, never once mentioned in the mainstream media is the fact that the southern hemisphere sea ice extent was at a record MAXIMUM this year. It seems to me the argument that the current rise in CO2 is solely responsible for the changes we have seen over the past several decades ignores much of the historical record and places an unwarranted confidence in computer model forecasts, which those of us who forecast weather know all to well, are NOT reality. I do think I am open to being convinced otherwise, but as of yet, I haven't seen the smoking gun that would do so.

Source

More Quotes From The Green Community

DocNavy
Message #3 - 09/20/07 02:20 PM
Here's a QUOTABLE QUOTES section on what The Green Movement says about:
Anthropogenic Global Warming
"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."--Dr. Wattenburg, Steven Schneider of Stanford University. DISCOVER magazine, Oct 1989, pg. 47

(According to the good Dr's, it's BEST that if one doesn’t have good science to support one’s conclusions, to scare the masses for the sake of the Earth and lie to them than it is to not say anything.)

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart on AGW, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

""In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality, and the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."--Al Gore On AGW, 2006

What They said THEN:

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."-Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000".-Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
"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".-Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

"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."-Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

"There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it."-Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."-Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

What they say NOW:
"As global temperature climbs to 3°C above present levels - which is likely to happen before the end of this century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated - the consequences will become increasingly severe. More than a third of species face extinction. Agricultural yields will start to fall in many parts of the world. Millions of people will be at risk from coastal flooding. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfires will take an ever greater toll."-Michael Le Page, NewScientist.com, 16 May 2007

Quotes From The Green Community About Humanity

Some of the following comments are pretty horrible. Consider the contempt for other human beings these people must feel. These are people who want the power to control the world. Be afraid; be very afraid.
Peter


DocNavy
Message #2 - 09/20/07 02:19 PM
Here's a QUOTABLE QUOTES section on what The Green Movement says about:
Humankind

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner (speaking about world population levels)- CNN founder and AGW supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -John Shuttleworth, founder of The Mother Earth News magazine.

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery, Writer and celebrated environmental activist.

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem" -- Lamont Cole, an ecologist at Cornell University, reviewed Silent Spring in Scientific American. (There is now an award named after him for an outstanding paper by a graduate student in ecology at Cornell.)

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times 15 July, 1995

The following compilation of information and links comes from DocNavy on the MSNBC Discussion Board titled "Environment".
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=403516&boardsparam=Page%3D1


DocNavy
Message #1 - 09/20/07 02:17 PM
Greetings all! Here for your perusal are a number of Articles, and Websites that help explain Global Warming. As this is a complex subject that is EASILY spun in a number of directions I have attempted to pull together a few resources that start at a basic level and work their way up to the more technical aspects of Climate Change. All of these sites contain referenced material, and bibliographies if you wish to go more in depth.
If anyone finds/has more educational information that they'd like to include, please post it. Please make sure that your posts contain active links, and the material can be understood by the Layperson. I invite both "Pro-AGW" and "Skeptics" alike. Thanks.
Doc
**Disclaimer** A number of sites I list could be classified as "Skeptic", but even those sites endeavor to show accurate, referenced, scientific data. The terms "AGW" and "GW" Stand for "Anthropogenic Global Warming", and ""Global Warming" respectively.
*Revised* A decent referenced primer that covers most everything related to AGW, HERE.
An easily read investigative article on the foundations and history of AGW, HERE.
A somewhat brash, though still good article on what might be causing GW, HERE.
An engaging academic DEBATE between Pro-AGW authorities and "Skeptics".
*UPDATED* A transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" and a LINK to the Video, accompanied by a LINK (Pt.1), LINK (Pt.2) to Pacific Research Institute's documetary about AIT's presentation of scientific "Facts".
LINK to "The great Global Warming Swindle" Documentary that is the Skeptical response to "An Inconvenient Truth."
An interesting article on the historical Climate Change Crises claims, HERE.
An interactive explanation of what "The Greenhouse Effect" is, HERE.
An explanation of what "Carbon Sequestering" or a "Carbon Sink" is, HERE.
The "Hockey Stick", a peer reviewed, referenced paper on exactly what it is, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper on the science of Climate Change, HERE.
*Revised* A referenced article explaining some of the more esoteric and confusing mathematical expressions often cited in IPCC TAR Report used to express actual warming, HERE.
Transcript of the Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 on Global Warming and The Kyoto Protocol.
A peer reviewed paper explaining Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol, it's results and how it effects the average person, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper discussing the effect of a warmer, CO2 enhanced World on Human Health, HERE. --==One of my personal FAVORITE reads!!==--
*NEW!* An outstanding and easily understood article on Water Vapor and it's relationship to the Greenhouse Effect, HERE. (Thanks DietDew)
An interesting article from the WASHINGTON POST about the "Fuzzy Math" used by mainstream media about Climate Change, HERE.
An excellent site explaining what thermal inversions, and Photochemical Smog are, HERE. (Thanks LtDan)
A DEVASTATING documentary on the attitudes and motivations behind the modern Eco/Enviro movement, and the disparity between what is seen in the media and what is done in real life, HERE.

**UPDATED!!** 27Nov2007
-Moved from previous thread to here 20Sept07-

Some Refreshing Cool, Clean Air From Europe......

Here is some common sense coming from across the big pond, (The Atlantic Ocean), from a member of the European Parliament. This kind of comment, and clear thinking is rarely reported in the American mainstream media. I wonder why? And the IPCC says the "debate is over"? Either they are trying to fool everyone, or they are lying, because the debate among politicians and surely among scientists, is far from over. Be very skeptical of what you hear on the mainstream nightly news.
Peter


THE SANE MAN OF EUROPE SPEAKS
An email from Roger Helmer [roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu], Conservative Member of the European Parliament

You may be interested in the letter below which I sent today to the Environment Editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Clover:

Dear Charles,
I was surprised to read in your piece in the DT yesterday that "no politician from a British party would side with the flat-earthers" (in your charming phrase) in the climate debate. I am afraid you are wrong. I myself have been campaigning against climate alarmism for some time. Only in April I conducted a major and very successful conference presenting the case against global warming hysteria, here in the European parliament in Brussels. My key-note speaker was former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, who shares my view on the issue. I also took the issue to a packed fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference in October.

The evidence shows that climate drives CO2 levels, not vice versa. And as an erstwhile mathematician, I know that the climate forcing effect of atmospheric CO2 is not linear, and certainly not exponential (as hinted at in Al Gore's mendacious disaster movie). It is logarithmic. We are already well up the curve, and further increases in CO2 levels will have a marginal effect on climate.

In the eighteenth century William Herschel showed that sunspots drive the price of wheat. We can now explain this phenomenon -- sunspots lead to an increase in the Sun's magnetic field, which reduces the cosmic ray flux in our upper atmosphere and reduces cloud formation, leading to warmer weather, higher crop yields and lower grain prices. Yet now you describe those who recognise that the Sun drives climate as "flat-earthers".

You would do well to read your fellow columnist Jan Moir in today's paper. "I've yet to meet the person, politician or otherwise, who takes carbon emissions seriously". This is my experience. While organisations, companies, political parties and the media buy into climate alarmism at the official level, I am astonished by the large numbers of well-informed people who admit privately that it's nonsense.

This is a scare like the Millennium Bug. We shall look back from the cold winters of the 2020s and be astonished at our gullibility.To be fair, the Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph have given a good platform to the other side of the debate. But I am disappointed that you personally seem to see no need to report in a balanced way, but have chosen to act as a cheerleader for the alarmists.
source

Another Prominent Scientist Adds To The Evidence Against The IPCC And Their "Theory" of Global Warming

Carbon dioxide emissions simply can not be causing global warming, much less climate change. Their are no scientific facts to support the IPCC's theory. Read the following comments from a prominent Earth Scientist.
Peter

Models trump measurements
Lawrence Solomon
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e&p=2
Financial Post
Saturday, July 07, 2007
We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the
isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.

Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.
"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.
"It is all a fiction."
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. http://www.urban-renaissance.org/.

CV of a denier
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard (Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology, metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Third Assessment Report.
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

More Nonsense From the UN and IPCC About Global Warming

As many have been saying, and Mr. Milloy reiterates in the article below, the key issue in the global warming/climate change debate is whether or not atmospheric carbon dioxide CO2 is the driver of change. The scientific evidence, some of which is described below, gives no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions, from whatever source, causes global warming or climate change. This truth will eventually be accepted because it is overwhelming. The politicians at the UN and the IPCC are simply using scare tactics and can not back up their claims with real-life, observable facts.
Peter


from:http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071122.html

UN Climate Distractions
Thursday, November 22, 2007
By Steven Milloy
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just issued the final installment of its year-long scare-the-pants-off-the public assessment of global warming. It should come as no surprise that, according to the UN, 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the UN Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global government-directed energy rationing and economic planning. Oh, and did I mention that the UN says we only have seven years to end the growth of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 40 years to stop them entirely if we are to avoid killing as many as one-fourth of the planet’s species?

I’d be scared too, if I didn’t know that this is the very same UN that just admitted to inflating the African AIDS epidemic -- thereby maximizing the public panic feeding its fundraising efforts -- and the very same UN that presided over the corrupt oil-for-food program which gave Saddam Hussein as much as $20 billion in kickbacks while delivering food unfit for human consumption to hungry Iraqis.

What we need to do is peer through the UN’s frantic efforts to distract us with a multitude of dire predictions of climatic Armageddon and focus on the core issue of the global warming debate -- only then does it become obvious why the UN’s claims call for extreme skepticism. That key issue, of course, is whether or not manmade CO2 emissions drive global temperature.

In its shockingly brief and superficial treatment of this crucial issue, the UN states, in relevant part, that, “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures, since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over every continent (except Antarctica).” This glib statement overlooks that fact that from 1940 to 1975 globally-averaged temperature declined (giving rise to a much-hyped scare about a looming ice age) while manmade CO2 emissions increased.

Global temperature has fallen since 1998 despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions. So for 27 of the last 50 years, globally-averaged temperatures have declined while CO2 emissions have increased. If there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature in the last 50 years at all, it seems to be slightly in the opposite direction from what the UN claims. And if we are experiencing manmade global warming, someone should tell Antarctica to get with the program.

The UN also says that, “Atmospheric concentrations of CO2… exceed by far the natural range over the 650,000 years.” Readers, apparently, are supposed to let their imaginations run away with them as to the implications of this statement. What the UN left out is that the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years is precisely opposite of what it has led the public to believe with statements like the preceding one. Increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 actually lag global temperature increases anywhere from 800-2000 years according to the Antarctic ice core record that covers the 650,000-year span of time.

Note to readers: A video debate on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking here. A new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years created by Craig Loehle of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement indicates that, 1,000 years ago, globally averaged temperature was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic “heat wave” obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, further deflating the UN’s rash conclusion about the warming of the past 50 years.

There’s also the matter of the quality of the temperature records relied on by the UN. In his project entitled, “How Not to Measure Temperature,” meteorologist Anthony Watts travels the U.S. inspecting stations at which temperature data are recorded by NASA. In the recently released Part 34 of his series, Watts found that the Klamath Falls, Oregon station was located amid acres of heat-trapping asphalt and exposed to huge amounts of waste heat from electric power conversion. Watts says the location of the temperature station seems to have been chosen for the convenience of the observer rather than the integrity of the temperature reading. It’s not hard to imagine how the upward bias in temperature readings from this and similarly situated stations around the world has raised serious questions about the validity of official temperature records and, consequently, their use in the global warming debate.

So when the UN claims to have divined a global warming trend averaging 0.75 degrees Celsius per century regardless of its cause it’s useful to keep in mind that NASA alarmist James Hansen says that the margin of error around the average global temperature is plus/minus 0.7 degrees Celsius. So we can’t possibly have all that much confidence in what the UN claims to be happening global temperature-wise.

Don’t be distracted by the alarmist arm-waving and sideshows about the North Pole melting, polar bears drowning and the myriad other supposed catastrophes mentioned in the same breath as manmade CO2 emissions and global warming. There’s no evidence that manmade CO2 emissions have any created any environmental problem and certainly no scientific justification for handing the keys of the American economy over to the UN.

John Christy, The IPCC and Skepticism

I like this guy, John Christy, and I don't think he is a lightweight. I think he knows of which he speaks.
Peter



Skepticism and the IPCC
By John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama.
This was published by the Beeb too! The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome. While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

* this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)

* scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead.

The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments. Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants. But, it may go further. At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient. After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol." Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure. As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere , to know).

You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows". This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.) The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans." We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation.

The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural". So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change." To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

Here is how this can work. Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period. The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well. Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking. You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming). In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.

The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time. Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this. Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations. In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.

Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds). Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view. How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.

Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo. I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed. These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.

At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear. I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.

I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway. Don't misunderstand me. Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties. (Kudos to Sky_Hunter)

However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring. The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher. He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..." Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.

Source