But it is not science to put out misleading quotes like this list by the Right Wing Heartland Institute has done.

Drill down into the context of these supposed skeptics — and you will see the majority on the list either have NO real climatology expertise else believe the climate models have too much uncertainty to make a call either one way or another. Dr. Joanne Simpson for example says “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical. ”

http://climatesci.org/ 2008/ 02/ 27/ trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

Without an honest quoting by real scientists and on their complete views, this list is TRASH — drawn up by Right Wing ideologues and nothing more!

Met office scientist Katie Hopkins said: “This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world.”

The article went on to say, “The long-term prognosis is alarming. As Reuters puts it: ‘Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.’”

It’s great to be able to predict a whole year’s average temperature, and even to predict that it will be a “record hot year”.

Let’s see how well the UK’s Meteorological Office really did.

Under the eye-catching headline, “2007 ’second warmest year’ in UK”, BBC tells us what really happened on a global scale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm

Turns out the top 10 were (from hottest to coolest): 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.

OOPS! So, despite the eye-catching headline, 2007 was number seven out of ten and not the “record hot year” at all. If you only take the years in the 21st century, 2007 ranked only number five out of seven, so it was kind of a “blooper”.

So much for predicting temperature for a whole YEAR in advance.

But cheer up, folks, as the article said IPCC’s scientists can predict (or project, as they prefer to call it) that “temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius” a whole CENTURY in advance.

Too bad none of us will be around in 2100 to see how well (or poorly) they actually did.

Max

Whose record are you going to use?

Stick with Hansen, baby, and you can’t lose…

If all else fails, you can always put in some parking lots or tall buildings next to your weather stations. Or, since things are heating up so badly due to AGW, hang in a couple of window AC units next to the thermometers.

Watch out for those satellites, though, they may trip you up.

Max

Justin, Max — any takers? I thought not.

I just love people who refuse to accept the hundreds of scientific studies the IPCC bases its conclusions on, but become true believes for one study that confirms their view (did I mention the solar stuff was debunked a long time ago?).

“Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”

This could become a real “win-win” situation.

If the Bali boondogglers have their way and can quickly bamboozle the world’s governments into submission, the money-shuffling carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes will have been in full swing by 2012, when reduced solar activity starts to cool things off.

The IPCC can then take a bow and claim credit for having reversed the previous warming trend.

The NY Times headlines will blare: “The IPCC’ cap and trade schemes have reversed global warming!”

Al Gore and the IPCC chair can then collect another Nobel peace prize for having saved the planet from almost certain extinction.

Everybody wins!

Well, almost everyone, because some poor jerks had to pay for this whole circus.

Guess who?

Max

BALI, Indonesia – An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012.

http://en.rian.ru/ analysis/ 20080103/ 94768732.html

Re the ‘19000′, I’m not really up on that one to be honest, but I believe it was discredited, at least to some extent.

I hate to be the one to say that, since I’m such a big Denier, but there it is.

Names on a petition or ‘consensus report’ or whatever don’t really impress me all that much anyway.

The problem, with both sides of the debate, is that there really aren’t very many ‘real’ climatologists out there or others with real insight and expertise in climate. For sure there aren’t 19000.

And we have a hard time evaluating their insight, because only history will show who was right. The science of climatology is really pretty new. Up until fairly recently, climatology was considered to be a sub-field of meteorology, but that has somehow been reversed in people’s minds and meteorologists are now looked down upon (unless they support one’s own opinions). The hype and propaganda has seriously confused things.

We should be giving every real scientist a fair hearing and trying to cut through the hype.

Personally, I’m more concerned about policy decisions that will hurt us all economically. That’s the more immediate danger.

Hi Ronald,

Sorry, cannot answer your question on “Inhofe’s 400”. Maybe he was short of time or figured that statements from a few hundred climate specialists and scientists would do the trick. Ask him directly.

Do not understand your analogy to “98 percent and flat earth”, but I guess you are trying to get some kind of a point across.

The whole point is that the much-ballyhooed so-called “consensus of the scientific world” is a myth, and I believe this was the point Inhofe was trying to make.

But for me this whole “consensus” argument is irrelevant anyway. In Wegener’s time the “consensus of the scientific world” agreed that his plate tectonics / continental drift theory was wrong. Twenty years after his death it became the new paradigm.

Right now the “scientific consensus” or prevailing paradigm (as expressed by IPCC) is that AGW is driving climate change.

Maybe Svensmark’s CERN study will bring a new paradigm shift, as Wegener did, and AGW will end up on the ash heap of scientific history. Who knows?

Regards,

Max