Dang. And I just bought a ton of shorts and sandals on the advice of the global warming crowd. Now I gotta go buy long johns and mukluks?!

Just acquire a versatile wardrobe. I am just back from a quick trip to South Dakota, wearing a parka I last wore on Denali twenty-five years ago. I left my Crocs and cargo shorts behind in So Cal.

Hot or cold, I am ready. Among other things that render me skeptical is the political tone of his arguments.

Hot or cold, someone will be right. Let's just say that the science of long term weather prediction is in its infancy.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

True, but determining the actual facts seems to be an issue...
The Climate Crisis Hoax being just one article discussing the the topic of AGW fraud...


So apparently a number of folks in the global warming community feel that they are entitled to their own facts. Even if AGW is real, the fraud at the center of the studies taints the conclusions.

The problem is, when you do stupid stuff and lie and manipulate data, you are forever tainted by that. You will never be trusted again, even in cases where you may be right. You have trashed your reputation.

An example: Many years ago I would sometimes donate to Greenpeace. Save the baby seals and all that. Then I saw a news article where they scaled some Navy ship and repelled down hanging offensive banners off it. What the heck? How stupid and pointless is that? Subsequently, they have never gotten any more money from me and I don't give them an ear when they try to convince me why I should. They may do some good things, but they are infiltrated by idiots.

Same thing goes for these climate scientists and their dire headlines about global warming (or global cooling). I don't know what their motivations are, but I don't listen to what they say any more, they have trashed their credibility. I'm not saying that global warming/cooling is real or fake, just that I have zero trust in those who are spouting off their predictions. Therefore, it is a non-issue for me at this point in time.

So there's no overwhelming consensus about climate warming among scientists, huh? Nasa says otherwise
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


About the emails from University of East anglia, or the so called "climagate". Among several thousands emails you'll find nothing but a few lines that can be interpreted in a less satisfactory manner. This was in 2009, with a second batch of emails released in 2010, and it has been investigated up and down ever since. Several hearings and commites have found absolutely no evidence of fraud, conspiracy or other misconduct. Clearly not good enough for climate warming deniers.


Climate deniers, if leading scientists all over the world can't change your mind then I don't think I can write anything that will have the sligthest impact on the way you view the world.

There is so much politics, rhetoric and noise to go with the bad science and outright fraud that whatever good science there is to support AGW is largely being drowned out.

Just to reiterate the point MostlyHarmless makes, there is almost universal consensus among those scientists who actually do real research that human influenced global warming is real. The supposed "controversy" among scientists is bogus.

Nearly all of the "scientists" who are quoted as denying global warming either have little or no real qualifications to speak about climate, and/or are not publishing their alleged data in mainstream peer reviewed climate journals. Note that the Mr. Casey in the original post in this thread is neither a climate scientist by training nor has a publication record in the field of climatology.

See Phil Plait's article: Climate Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming Is Real and Our Fault


There is debate among climate scientists, but it is about the details. They debate how fast we will warm, how hot it eventually will get, how high the sea will rise and how fast it will rise, etc. There is no longer any serious debate among real climate scientists about the central idea that the climate is warming as a result of CO2.

You do realise that "whatever good science" is in fact the accumulated knowledge of the world's scientists in a number of fields related to climate science?

It's not "good science" versus "bad science". It is THE science. AGW is happening. The uncertainties are how much, how fast and how bad will the effects be.

The amount of "politics, rhetoric and noise" depends largely on what media you choose to follow. From my view, there's no drowning of good science.

Is the Earth on a warming trend now? Yes.

Has it been on a warming trend before? Yes.

Were humans to blame for previous warming trends? Seeing as how they weren't even around for many of them, probably not.

Are humans to blame for the current warming trend? Don't know.

Will the Earth have a future cooling trend? Probably, since it's had them before.

Will humans be to blame for any future cooling trend? Don't know.

It's silly to argue whether the Earth is warming or cooling right now. It's pretty simple to stick a thermometer in the ground (so to speak) and measure things over time. The question is: Is the current warming abnormal, not part of the Earths normal cycle, and proven to be caused by humans? That's what I'm not 100% convinced about. Some scientists say yes, others say no, others say we don't know. It's one thing to take measurements and report them (that part of science I trust). It's more difficult to ascribe a cause/effect relationship with any certainty on something as large as a planet.

Warming is occurring at this exact moment in time. My "hunch" is that humans are playing some role, I don't know how big, in warming. And I think scientists are only a small step beyond a hunch at this time. So, what should the response be? Is a response warranted? If so, how big of a response?

It seems like every time someone asks the question, "Is this an abnormal temperature increase, not part of the Earths cycle, and are humans the cause of it?" then the response is "I can't believe you are denying that warming is happening!" That is a redirect away from the question that was asked.