Like I said I make no pretense of being any kind of global warming expert. Given that, I really have no great interest in arguing specifics. Like I said, from my viewpoint all I see is an overwhelming majority of what seems to be the scientific community saying that AGW is real and a handful of deniers *mostly* with some vested financial interest saying that it's not.

But I'll at least make a minimal effort to check some of the points you made. This one for example.

Essentially random, hopefully unbiased. As equivalent to randomly throwing a dart as I could manage. What I found was http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html which seemed geared to a high school level which suited me just fine.

The first thing the article did was to point out three potential effects related to climate change that volcanic eruptions may have. These are the ozone effect, the greenhouse effect and the haze effect. The article went on to describe the possible influence that volcanic eruptions may have on the ozone effect and concluded that while there are some negative effects they are indirect effects that are generally short lived. The conclusion was that human generated CFC’s have a far greater effect on ozone depletion than volcanic eruptions.

From there the article directly addresses your point of the relative contribution of CO2 from human activities versus that of volcanic eruptions; however this article totally contradicted your claims. The article claims that the CO2 contributed by human activities exceeds the CO2 contributed by volcanic eruptions by *150* times! There was no direct link but a reference was made to T.M. Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) supporting this 150 times figure.

The article continues with the influence of volcanic eruptions on the haze effect and to summarize quickly concluded that volcanic eruptions have a greater effect on increasing haze than they do on increasing the greenhouse effect and on the balance represent an overall cooling effect *not* a warming effect. The article then concludes with four well-known volcanic eruptions that resulted in a documented *decrease* in world temperatures albeit temporary.

The bottom line is that I threw a dart and came up with what appears to be a totally credible report, albeit somewhat simplistically written, that totally denied your entire claim about volcanic eruptions. Not only are the CO2 contributions of human activity 150 times that of the CO2 contributions of volcanic eruptions, but because of the haze effect volcanic eruptions are actually a net global *cooling* effect which is the opposite of warming.

Like I said I make no claim to being a AGW expert but I’m going to have to believe the claims of the Department of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University over your claims. Also like I said if you disagree with these findings feel free to argue with them, not me.

Not to be obsequious, but GW (AKA CG) & AGW are not the same subject matter.

Since most reasonable people (apparently that equals roughly 90% of the planet), especially climatologists, agreed circa 1970 that an ice age was in our imminent future due to global cooling, the earth has been gradually warming a bit, on average (except for the past decade).  Global cooling was the 'consensus' view.  I'd venture to say that 'no scientific body of national or international standing' maintained a dissenting opinion at the time.

Fortunately (or not, depending on your philosophy), global cooling couldn't conveniently be blamed on human activity, so we were mostly just warned about it & told we'd better lay in a supply of woolens.  Since the technology of computer games was in its infancy then, it is argued, we should give the scientists a pass on that one.  OK, no harm, no foul.

While the earth was gradually warming, to the consternation of global cooling 'alarmists' such as they were, computer games gradually became infinitely more complex and powerful.  The environmental movement focused scientists' attention on pollution in general, and gradually, as warming became obvious and accepted, they started playing computer games modeling pollution and its effects as a possible explanation of why their previous models had failed to predict warming, having in fact predicted just the opposite.

Now we're told, by the same scientific community that predicted global cooling, that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate and, further, that CO2 is the culprit.  Not just any CO2, but our CO2.  How'd they arrive at this conclusion?  By playing computer games analyzing coexisting phenomena and identifying associations.  Apparently not by simply analyzing raw data, but by performing countless (subjective? who knows?) adjustments to the raw data.

If this were some academic debate without a political or economic context, I'd probably be accepting enough of the 'consensus.'  But, whatever the climatologists' motivation, climatology's track record is not particularly reassuring.  Certainly not enough to justify the 'cure' being proposed.  I've had no argument with the reality of mild global warming during the last 40 years.  Now, there is potential for serious harm, so we should emphatically call foul.  I have a serious argument with the propositions that 1) the 'models' are any more predictive than they were before (they certainly failed to predict this decade correctly) and that 2) human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the critical straw that's breaking the proverbial camel's back.

And I don't think this guy works for Exxon.

Is it something about JU that brings out this side of people, or is it just the interent in general I wonder?

In any event since I believe that the scientific consensus is the earth is warming *and* that man's activities have contributed to this warming then it follows that is what I and the other "reasonable" people believe. As far as the precise percentage 90% seems as reasonable guess as any other so we may as well use that as anything else. Whatever the figure is you cannot deny it's an overwhemling majority.

As far as Global Cooling I was in my early 20's in the early 70's but I was not aware that at the time or even since that there was a consensus on Global Cooling similar to the consensus there is today on AGW. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying I simply don't remember it. But then I had other things on my mind at the time more important to me than some scientific theory.

But whatever. For the sake of argument I'll grant you it's true. I'm not really buying it per se but for argument sake, OK. My response is, so what?

I don't know if it's still true today but not all that many years ago if all you said was that the weather would be the same tomorrow as it was today then you would on average be far more correct than any weatherman. I would hope that our weather prediction has progressed in those few years just as our knowledge of the climate has progressed much more than that in 50 years, but that makes two important points.

The first point is that if you take that attitude then you will *never* be prepared for any change. You will *always* be caught in the rain without an umbrella. Secondly it's been 50 years since those times and a *lot* has changed in those 50 years.

Say what you will the consensus scientific opinion is what I'm going to believe over and above a few isolated scientists even when there is no potential of unlterior motive and regardless of how anyone claims there's not there is a huge vested interest in oil and coal that *really* doesn't want to hear anything like AGW. Yes, I realize that once such a huge consensus has been formed then there may be some tendency for funding to dry up on the other side. I have no precise figures but I guess that research funding grant money is a whole lot less than the sum total money involved in the oil and coal industries.

If you can keep this in mind and move past the snot to the substance then that would be helpful.

What this AGW denial reminds me of in so many ways is how the tobacco industry successfully delayed anti-smoking legislation for so many years.The movie Thank you for Smoking is a perfect example of this.

The point is that there is no need for credible contrary opinion, all that’s required is a small but noisy group of deniers (funded by vested interests of course) and that along with the idea of “equal time” is all that’s necessary to claim that a “controversy” exists when in reality there is no such thing.

It’s always a losing strategy, it's a cost effective way of implementing a “delaying action”, but in the end the truth will out. Is there anyone today that can honestly make the claim that it’s not proven that smoking is bad for both those that do it as well as those that are exposed to it? Hardly.

But this is pretty much the method that the right has been reduced to on *everything*. Certainly the teabaggers and healthcare reform are being fought using the identical technique.

In 20 years the same will no doubt be true of AGW (and UHC for that matter), the only question is will we have lost our chance to actually do anything about it, assuming that we actually do have some chance now.

forums.joeuser.com

The Senate is a bit more confusing due to a special election where there was a republican majority but technically no reorganization due to the senate not being in session at the time. In any case the republicans had a majority in the senate from 2003 to 2007 which gave the republicans 4 years of control of both houses and the presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

The only corresponding time that the democrats had a similar majority was the first two Clinton years and so far one year under Obama and perhaps more but that's all in the future. Otherwise at least one of the three major branches (Presidency, Senate, House) was split.

All in all the republicans have had control of the presidency 20 of the last 29 years (counting 1 of Obama so far), 12 of the last 15 years in the house and 10 of the last 15 years of the Senate.

I could list peer-reviewed journal articles (ex 'Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature' This article uses Neptune to show that temperature increases on Earth have more to do with that BIG GIGANTIC ball of gas something Paladin said, and I could list 100 or so more peer-reviewed journals that I've reviewed/read)  but again you don't care.  You just keep appealing to the majority as if that's scientific or logical.  You also overly scruntize the other side when you should be scruntizing the side your own on as well.  They do get government money or money from somewhere in general (government usually just lavishes you with large sums of money though) can be very persuasive just as big oil money can be as well.

How do most scientific movements start off?  Most movements start off small. It doesn't matter what the other side could say to you.  Which again is highly unscientific. My previous posts point stands true.  The reason I have been silent is due to the fact that I was observing my day of rest.

Its a good thing that ID believes in freedom of speech and let's people speak EVEN when they disagree and doesn't go blocking them.

News flash: Democrates have controlled congress more years than republicans since 1945 (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm ) and I am suprised you bring up the fact the republicans controlled congress during clinton's years because most democrates champion clinton as balancing the budget when congress has more to do with that.

I am basically through having this palavar with a coccydynia lepton.

I keep appealing to the *overwhelming* *scientific* majority.

Are you suggesting that it's more logical to accept the opinion of the *underwhelming* *scientific* minority and deny the published opinion of *every* "scientific body of national or international standing"?

If so, it's you that are not logical.

Remarkable what a little typo will do.  CG should have been CC.

The tobacco analogy is a bit odd.  But oddly appropriate.

The way I remember it, the tobacco scientists weren't behind an international, government backed plan to force everyone on the planet to smoke and pay taxes for the privilege.  In this case, it's the AGW scientists who have cooked the books and ignored reality, much as the tobacco-backed scientists did, and it's the 'deniers' (your term) pointing out that the emporer has no clothes.

Furthermore, the proof that the use of tobacco is a major contributor to chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer (not the only contributor, mind you, but an overwhelming one) is far more solid than the proof that man is the principle cause of global warming, on the order of several magnitudes.  AGW (not GW/CC, but AGW) remains a theory - it hasn't been confirmed and can't be tested in the same way.

Interesting. When one has no concern, there appears to be no problem, i.e "so what". Can one reasonably expect others to take issue, now that he/she is enlightened? Here's what you were oblivious to through in the 70's, as well as here and here, just for the sake of argument.

Just wild speculation on my part, but if some people believed, or at least considered the hype, in the 70's I don't find it hard to see folks that won't believe the latest "the sky is falling" scenario from activists, marketers, and scientists. Now tie the whole thing up in a multi-billion dollar carbon cash scheme (something that was missing in the 70's) and sit back and watch all trust and support well up for this massive undertaking. Maybe if they can get the weeks weather right, people might have an easier time with their predictions for 100 years from now. In the meantime it might help them scrap together believable rallies LINK, LINK,

BTW "Denier", another lefty buzz word (they sure are good at creating those colorful labels, easy for the true believers to learn and repeat too), has a certain medieval touch to it don't you think? IMO sounds a lot like "Blasphemer" used during the Inquisition for those that didn't support the belief system. Oh, I guess that is the correct intent.  My bad. Just my two cents while I'm waiting for some hope and change (positive that is).

I have a few notes to point out here.  The CRU is one of four sets of Data that the UN’s IPCC report and many other Governmental GW reports are based off of.  It is the most highly sited Data.  The second most used Data is from Dr. Hansen at the GISS.  If you don’t know Dr. Hansen, he is the man that has been working with and has many non-NASA related projects funded by many of the new Green Industry corporations started by (you guessed it) former VP Gore.  Dr. Hansen’s data was revised last year after a rather inconvenient numbers of “Flawed” numbers where discovered after some of the reporting station numbers did not match his.  It has also come to light the similar “Faulty numbers” problems from Australia and New Zealand have been discovered recently too. 

Now lets look at the fact that last year the CRU claimed that a large chunk of historical RAW data collected from reporting stations from all over the world had been “Lost” or dumped to save space in their new building.  This revelation happened soon after a freedom of information act request was ordered and conveniently about the same time these email had been sent out requesting co-workers to delete any emails with data on them.  Without that data, we now will never find out if the CRU’s data is telling the truth or if the data is just a bunch of “tricked or adjusted” (their own words) numbers.  This is where the emails admit that “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”.

Many scientists rely on that Data provided by CRU and Dr. Hansen.  It is easy to get a “consensus” if the data provided to the scientist are thought to be accurate.  Unfortunately these bad apples, which had not been able to get the raw data to fit their models, have been adjusting the numbers at the collection point and deleting the raw data.  They have been playing the rest of the scientific community as fools.  When conducting scientific experiments, if you get results that do not fit your theory you take stock at what went wrong and change that theory.  Then try again.

Guys like this give all science a bad name.  Which is a shame.

P.S.  I am still wondering where those holes in the ozone layers went to?

Basically my point is that the doctrine of obfuscation and generation of false controversy is like intellectual terrorism. It’s the classic asymmetrical warfare by which a small financially vested minority can successfully compete against the proven majority long beyond any real credible difference of scientific opinion.

What’s odd, although totally in character, is your usage of mindspeak to claim black is white and up is down.

The analogy is that the tobacco company’s position is the same as the AGW denier’s position. Both go against proven science. Both are funded by companies whose total existence is threatened and will do *anything* to defend it.

In point of fact tobacco has been involved in the funding of some the very same Astroturf organizations that fight both AGW and healthcare reform. The analogy is not odd, it’s perfect.

Take a look at the following links.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding."

I repeat "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support."

Idiot

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial.

Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer — to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."[27]

Oh I know exactly what it said. Except in the 70's nobody called it conjecture.  The hypothesis may not have had support, but its silence was deafening. What term do you think they have for GW in the 2040"s? Sham, hoax, scheme?

You implied you never heard of it, I just provided proof it existed not to convince you it was real or not. Nice attempt to twist though. I'd award you a Robert Gibb's button if I could.