j_b

Like most deniers, he is going with whatever is most convenient to defuse any attempt at remediation.

? perhaps you should consider there might there be several possibilities why I haven't posted a response yet. The cascadeclimbers server has been really slow over the last 24 hours and it makes posting somewhat difficult. The scientific part of the IPCC reports is fully under the control of climate scientists despite the affirmations of the same handful of critics. Even a staunch opponent like Lindzen described the reports as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science". huh? I already told you these non-anthropogenic factors were accounted for in the synthesis of the research compiled by the IPCC. You are confusing a) taking everything that is known into account and finding that GHG emissions are the main factor and b) not accounting for non-anthropogenic forcing.

I am not saying anything different than what most experts say so my particular expertise isn't the issue here. Otherwise, I am not a climatologist but I work with naturel systems that are an essential part of climate change studies.

No, I am thinking more along the lines of incorporating primary and secondary exogenic influences ranging from the variation of solar output and to the formation of clouds due to cosmic rays, for instance. I am thinking about changes in the heat distribution across the earth through oceanic currents such as El Nino (La Nina), the Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation influenced perhaps by geophysical changes in the molten portion of the earth interior. I am thinking about temporal (cyclical and secular) changes in the earth's rotation upon its spin axis as influenced by the tidal friction of the earth-moon system. Etc.etc. Climate science already accounts for most of the phenomena you listed even if there is still a lot more to learn. Despite the deafening noise emanating from the denial industry, the case for anthropogenic global warming is stronger than ever.

The Worst is yet to Come: Unemployed Americans Should Hunker Down for More Job Losses Nouriel Roubini Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%. While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession. Also, remember: The last recession ended in November 2001, but job losses continued for more than a year and half until June of 2003; ditto for the 1990-91 recession. So we can expect that job losses will continue until the end of 2010 at the earliest. In other words, if you are unemployed and looking for work and just waiting for the economy to turn the corner, you had better hunker down. All the economic numbers suggest this will take a while. The jobs just are not coming back. There's really just one hope for our leaders to turn things around: a bold prescription that increases the fiscal stimulus with another round of labor-intensive, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, helps fiscally strapped state and local governments and provides a temporary tax credit to the private sector to hire more workers. Helping the unemployed just by extending unemployment benefits is necessary not sufficient; it leads to persistent unemployment rather than job creation. The long-term picture for workers and families is even worse than current job loss numbers alone would suggest. Now as a way of sharing the pain, many firms are telling their workers to cut hours, take furloughs and accept lower wages. Specifically, that fall in hours worked is equivalent to another 3 million full time jobs lost on top of the 7.5 million jobs formally lost. This is very bad news but we must face facts. Many of the lost jobs are gone forever, including construction jobs, finance jobs and manufacturing jobs. Recent studies suggest that a quarter of U.S. jobs are fully out-sourceable over time to other countries. Other measures tell the same ugly story: The average length of unemployment is at an all time high; the ratio of job applicants to vacancies is 6 to 1; initial claims are down but continued claims are very high and now millions of unemployed are resorting to the exceptional extended unemployment benefits programs and are staying in them longer. Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more. [..] The damage will be extensive and severe unless bold policy action is undertaken now. http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/257978/the_worst_is_yet_to_come_unemployed_americans_should_hunker_down_for_more_job_losses

Well, it is what that site claims anyway but I assume you haven't read these papers and deniers have a poor track record of representing truthfully what a study may and may not say. Moreover, a good number of these papers are not about science but rather about policy and I fail to see how policy affects the scientific theory. Most importantly though, not all peer-reviews are equal, which explains that some journals are more prestigious than others by a long shot. For example, many trade publications do not have very serious peer-review. Many of the publications listed at your link have appeared in E&E (mostly a social science publication), whose peer-review status is very dubious and has met much criticism among climate researchers. The main editor of the journal has acknowledged a political agenda, most of these papers are of poor quality and wouldn't have been published in a journal with a legitimate peer-review process (i.e. actually reviewed by active researchers in the field). I won't comment about the peer-review status of the CATO journal because I don't need to. In other word, I suggest to you that said list should be vetted by climate scientists (and not the habitual crew of deniers) before drawing any sweeping conclusion about the status of skeptical climate science publications. Also, let's not forget that peer-review is a necessary step of the scientific process but it is by no means sufficient: errors are made that eventually and hopefully get corrected as further studies come along. Finally, let's also not forget that Oreske did publish in Nature a survey of the literature in 2003(?) concluding that a large consensus existed among researchers on the anthropogenic nature of modern climate warming; as a matter of fact she could hardly locate any publications that challenged anthropogenic global warming. what do you think the IPCC reports are if not a synthesis of the scientific literature on climate?

irrelevant. The ex-physicist isn't contradicting any major aspect of climate science. He only put a site together answering the same old denialist talking points that scientists have been refuting for 20 years. Nothing more. talking to you certainly makes me feel as if I were still in high school.

and no publication that contradicts global warming science despite your assertion to the contrary.

Nonsense. The minimum standard I am demanding is that people who actively claim to know better than the immense majority of experts be climate scientists and support their argument with published science. How am I not applying these standards to myself or that ex-physicist?

you are claiming that Easterbrook has a peer-reviewed publication that contradicts global warming science. Now you have to show it to us and you can't because it doesn't exist. Easterbrook is a glacial geologist with a long and productive career who is now emeritus (retired). It appears that his work on the cause of global warming doesn't meet the standard of peer-reviewed publications. End of story.

John cook ex-physicist is only popularizing the science found in legitimate peer-reviewed publications as you can see by following the links found in the short answers. He doesn't pretend that he and a couple of scientists know better than the rest of the field. Do you understand?

Nope. There is no publication with the title found in that pdf. Also beware that some of the ones listed in publications are abstracts and not peer-reviewed.

As far as I can tell that hasn't been published and if it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed publication, it isn't peer-reviewed. Do you actually understand what you are talking about?

I haven't read all of Easterbrooks' work but I don't see any peer-reviewed science from him that contradicts global warming science. Which paper are you talking about?

The answers to 73 denialist talking points ranked in order of frequency of use on the web. Main paper? which main paper?

I guess not. The really funny part is that people like you expect others to believe that "original thinking" out of the box would enable you to discuss climate science.

so, are you ready for a pop-quizz?

what a surprise! you are regurgitating the exact same silly talking points that have been refuted countless times by climate scientists over the last 20 years. Do we really need to answer them once more? I have an idea that will save us all the time of beating this dead horse again. Just follow the following link and you’ll find all the answers (and more) to the talking points you read on global warming denial sites: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php you'll find that the answer to your talking points are listed at #27 and #34. Be sure to check the links if you remain unconvinced by the short answer. There will be a pop quizz so be sure to read it all.

next time your elderly parent has a pain in his chest, you ought to call your plumber just to see how it works out. right, he was Thatcher's adviser so he knows a thing or two about dismantling/preventing all regulations on businesses. We are witnessing how his neoliberal vision worked out. about the "communist world government" the greens are about to sneak on us? huhuh ... It's not a peer-reviewed publication so it has only limited interest to validate your point of view. Easterbrook is well known for being a contrarian. Can you cite one of his publication that would refute modern climate science? I didn't think so. climate has changed in the past but the carbon stored in the earth crust over millions of years was never before the last century released in 100 years. Carbon dioxide is a well known greenhouse gas as established by 19th century science. says the dude who denies the science put out by the immense majority of climate scientists. don't let me stop you from developing an argument. who says that he holds true to basic tenets? you? hearing him push nuclear power, genetically modified organisms and geo-engineering as the solution to various environmental/social issues, I doubt that it is true.

Isn't Monckton a ferocious global warming denier with a degree in journalism who has no formal knowledge in climatology yet pretends to know better than the immense majority of experts? Just 2 examples among many of Monckton’s handy work: Monckton's deliberate manipulation Cuckoo Science No, not ‘any’ critic. Only those that spew the typical far right wing pablum about environmentalism as a religion, depict Gore as a liar because of his work on global warming, conceive the role of government like cavemen would and accuse everyone else of ‘statism’, and push conspiracy theories about communist world government that supposedly threaten our “freedom and sovereignty” a zealot? Like the free-marketeers who actively deny global warming when they barely have a scientific education. As if accusing me of zealotry and having religious beliefs were a rational argument. You certainly aren’t afraid of contradictions when you denounce ‘statists’ on the one hand yet push nuclear power on the other. Nuclear power development always was and still is mostly the fact of states because private investors know that without taxpayers shouldering the burden of development and clean up there is no future in nuclear power. We won’t even talk about the kind of state needed to keep nuclear power safe.

How the climate data is interpreted is only a sidetrack to the whole issue, certainly not. it is central to the issue of Monckton being a crackpot who pretends to be a climate scientist (among other things) the IPCC also received the prize and for good reason because Gore has only been popularizing what the experts have said for decades just formulate an accurate criticism of Gore and I'll agree with you but Mockton and other global warming deniers are wrong in their criticism of Gore. Nonsense. I repeat constantly that the means determine the ends. Process is almost everything. Gore's movie was right on the mark and was needed to counter fossil fuel industry and corporate media lies. I have fought my entire life against all form of totalitarianism of any stripe. I believe in the government being the instrument to enforce the will of the people and nothing more. If libertarians were credible they would denounce the hijacking of government by corporations instead of worrying about "statists" "sovereign nation"? i sense far right lunacy ...

If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to explain what you mean because I don't see anything here incriminating for Gore or that would change my opinion that Monckton is a charlatan. As to the denialists' accusations toward Gore, most of them are complete non-sense. I am no great fan of Gore but his film was very well received among climate scientists, and the British judge who criticized the movie should stick to law because he clearly has no expertise to place judgment on the science.

I didn't see at first that you changed my quote (ha ha)and I am here to tell you that your logic fails. Al gore is only popularizing what the immense majority of scientists say about the evolution of climate. AL Gore isn't pretending to know better than ~99% of the experts, which is exactly what Monckton the cranck does. Do you see the difference, now?

yawn ...

I don't see any irony in what I said. Falsely pretending to have the expertise to assess a scientific theory without having the training nor the experience is charlatanism. Now if you want to argue the opposite, you'll have to be more explicit because your innuendos aren't sufficient.