What Do We Think About Climate Change

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Thomas,
perhaps you prefer to have a look at more in deep discussions on the matter here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8

Yes- though on condition. I frequent skeptic blogs and look carefully at the arguments presented. I take them as having value ONLY after I have referenced the source material & verified the validity of the assumptions made, facts presented etc. I do the same for Pro- AGW blogs....

I am impressed with the quality of discussion Steve holds his blog to. He is not a rapid skeptic and is quick to say things such as "I am trying to understand this issue in the science... what do posters know about this...?

I have to run so cannot take a look at the links just now.

On your graphs presented above:

The graph you provided is the "Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change":



A longer range data set is provided below:



I placed the line on the graph to show the trend I feel it represents.
These graphs are a representation of "Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change anomalies"

A definition:

"Monthly mean temperature (average of the mean monthly maximum and minimum) (°C)"

Do you find it troubling that you are presenting this data to support the following:

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Fact: In spite of increasing CO2 levels in the last decades, global temperature is not following, but rather decreasing in the last 10 years or so.

When this data is found on a page along with 10 other graphs which NASA is providing as documentation of a clear warming trend?

A example; the graph just above the one you have posted from the same NASA page:




Is it possible that we as lay persons are not understanding the graphical presentation of this data and simply posting graphs which appear to support our conclusions??

This is the data used in the graph you provided:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt


Jimbo-

The rate of change I found to be exceptional is atmospheric C02 not temperatures, but since you mentioned it I will add a additional Fact to my list:

Fact: The observed increased levels of atmospheric Co2 are a direct response to mans activities... That is there would be no increase if not for our emissions.



"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) growth has increased 35 percent faster than expected since 2000, report scientists writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
"Worryingly, more than half the increase came from a decreased efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The reminder came from a slowing in the efficiency of use of fossil fuels."

The research, which was conduced by the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia (UEA), the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), and a number of other institutions, reported that global CO2 emissions were around 9.9 billion tons of carbon in 2006, or 35 percent above emissions in 1990, the year used as a reference year under the Kyoto Protocol. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed an average of 1.93 parts per million (ppm) between 2000 and 2006 compared with an annual growth rate of 1.58 during the 1980s and 1.49 ppm in the 1990s. Annual emissions from the burning of fossil fuels -- the largest source of anthropogenic carbon -- increased from 6.5 billion tons in the 1990s to 7.6 billion tons between 2000 and 2006. Emission from deforestation and other land-use change were 1.5 billion tons in 2006, or around 15 percent of total anthropogenic emissions.

Saturated carbon sinks:

"Weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2," said co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought," explained co-author Dr Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia and British Antarctic Survey.

"What we are seeing is a decrease in the planet's ability to absorb carbon emissions due to human activity," said the study's lead author, Dr Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project. "Fifty years ago, for every tonne of CO2 emitted, 600kg were removed by land and ocean sinks. However, in 2006, only 550kg were removed per tonne and that amount is falling."

"The longer we delay reducing emissions, the more restorative capacity will be lost," added CSIRO scientist Dr Mike Raupach, a co-chair of the Global Carbon Project."
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1022-carbon.html

Historic atmospheric Co2 trends:



"In a study presented August 11, 1999, at the meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Spokane, Washington, scientists have reported that the amount of vegetation that has been lost to logging, burning, and agriculture throughout human history is the equivalent of about 180 billion tons of carbon-carbon transferred to the atmosphere as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, fossil fuel use by humans has been the main source of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. However, according to Christopher Field, a Carnegie Institution of Washington biologist and coauthor of the study, the net amount of carbon emitted from land-use changes over time is about seventy-five percent of the total carbon emitted from fossil fuel burning."

"Field and Ruth DeFries, a University of Maryland geographer and lead author of the paper, found that an additional 60 billion tons of carbon was lost before the industrial age. "There has been a huge loss of carbon from the world's ecosystem over the time that humans have been involved in agriculture, and this loss has intensified terrifically in the last few centuries," said Field."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0812082119.htm

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

when you tried to say the sun may have something to do with global climate change
what was I supposed to do other than laugh
I was rolling when I read that
I mean please common seriously
ya think the sun may have something to do with this hole climate thing
really
thats going to be funny to a lot of people there G

You are the only one around here who's laughing at it.
That's precisely what I meant about the quality of your posts.
And yes, I regret to say it's a personal attack. I see you didn't like it. So, don't do that to others. Thanks.

[Guillermo]

Thomas,
Nothing in your post invalidates my statement on the global temperature is not warming for the last ten years at least, but rather cooling. As you have noticed for sure, the scale of the other NASA graphs is not good to realize these last ten years behaviour. And there are many authors extending the not warming trend to a much longer period of time, as well as criticising NASA's (Hansen's) data as biased. But I want to be cautious.

As I think NASA's should be more cautious when presenting those graphs, in my opinion doing it just to still support the already discredited Mann and Hansen's jockey stick thing (http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354) I may be wrong, of course...but wait....there was NASA people (Marshall Space Filght Center) doesn't seeming to agree either! (http://spacescience.spaceref.com/new...d06oct97_1.htm)

From there:
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward."
And they were talking 1979-1999!!!! Amazing, dont you think so?

About the supposed decline in sea and land eficiency to sink CO2, what I have to say is the process is not well known at all, to say the least, as has been highlighted in some of the works posted lately. And vegetation seems to be extending, not diminishing. Planet is greening, thanks to the higher CO2 and mild temperatures, as it happened in the past.

And yes, I think McIntyre is a well informed, capable and prudent sceptic, able to in deep analyze the raw data and respectfully and rigurously dissent from the AGW camp when necessary.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

An interesting document from the U.S Climate Change Science Program (not suspicious of being 'sceptics' at all!):
"Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences"
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...inal-chap5.pdf

From there:

"7. Summary
This chapter has evaluated a wide range of scientific literature dealing with the possible causes of recent temperature changes, both at the Earth’s surface and in the free atmosphere. It shows that many factors – both natural and human-related – have probably contributed to these changes. Quantifying the relative importance of these different climate forcings is a difficult task. Analyses of observations alone cannot provide us with definitive answers. This is because there are important uncertainties in the observations and in the climate forcings that have affected them. Although computer models of the climate system are useful in studying cause-effect relationships, they, too, have limitations. Advancing our understanding of the causes of recent lapse-rate changes will best be achieved by comprehensive comparisons of observations, models, and theory – it is unlikely to arise from analysis of a single model or observational data set."

Well, that's, I say, a prudent position.
(bolded is mine)

Cheers.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Thomas,
in my opinion doing it just to still support the already discredited Mann and Hansen's jockey stick thing

This is a interesting story which I will lay out when I get a half hour to draft it. Discredited it is not...

Originally Posted by Guillermo

From there:
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward."
And they were talking 1979-1999!!!! Amazing, dont you think so?

Well it is amazing that in the end the science gets well informed as to the limits to our understanding:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite data showed little or no warming above the surface. There is no longer evidence of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Since those reports, errors have been identified and corrected in the satellite
data and other temperature observations. These data now show global average warming in the atmosphere similar to the warming observed at the surface and consistent with the results from climate models, although discrepancies remain to be resolved in the tropics. The recent evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes."
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...ft/default.htm

And:

"We find that there is no longer a serious and ubiquitous discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates."

Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, submitted: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology. 3/08.

These studies are 2007 and 2008... It's good to keep current eh?

Originally Posted by Guillermo

About the supposed decline in sea and land eficiency to sink CO2, what I have to say is the process is not well known at all, to say the least, as has been highlighted in some of the works posted lately. And vegetation seems to be extending, not diminishing. Planet is greening, thanks to the higher CO2 and mild temperatures, as it happened in the past.

I will ask you the same question I asked Jimbo..
The yearly carbon emissions we are releasing are greater then twice quantity of carbon which is accumulating in the atmosphere each year.
The question now and for the past three decades in this field is not how we could have possibly caused the increase in atmospheric Co2, but why the levels are not far higher.

The question I have for you:

If we were not adding this Co2 to the atmosphere, would the atmospheric concentration of Co2 still be increasing?

If so, Why?

And no I did not counter you premise the temperatures are dropping over "at least the last ten years"...

I did that in the earlier post.



What I did was raise some questions I have as to why there is a graph which shows apparently no change presented as evidence of change.
Why is it you believe that "monthly mean" representations are very level in spite of changes while a yearly or five year mean of the same data show marked change?
Monthly mean: average of the mean monthly maximum and minimum (°C)
.......

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by bntii

No problem Jimbo,
Point by point:

I think this is splitting hairs... it is clear that there is a remarkable change in atmospheric Co2 which occurs right at the time when we are adding remarkable amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, and centuries after we affected many components of the carbon cycle via land use changes

Yeah and that remarkable change occurred after 1950, NOT 1850 or 1800. Yet CO2 was increasing all the way back in 1750. This is the 'hundreds of years' I was referring to earlier in the thread. I would have done the research and answered earlier if you'd just kept after me. I got distracted by you-know-who's childish rants. I won't let it happen again, I promise


So if you still want to attribute that early CO2 rise to anthropogenic releases, you have to select a DRASTICALLY reduced 'threshold of significance, one which is totally unsupportable in science, so this is not hair splitting. Our emissions were 1/2250, more than 3 orders of magnitude smaller, than present (referenced to year 2000) That early trend must have been due to natural causes! Now you can make a pretty good case (not 'air tight', but pretty good) for the post 1950 trend knee being largely due to anthropogenic emissions, but you're on very thin ice with that earlier trend.

Face it: Atmospheric CO2 was on an upward trend BEFORE human industry began releasing it in quantities that matter. This is a FACT.

Originally Posted by bntii

By ALL measures and your own admission, temperatures have been rising since the 1950's:

Never did I say that the 1950's started a warming trend; go back and read it yourself. I posted that the 1950's were the beginning of climatologically significant CO2 releases. I have stated consistently on this thread that there is no causality between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures, even in the shorter time scales. The one and only 'test case' we have for that 'short time scale' causality is the 20th century, and as I've stated REPEATEDLY, the ~40 years immediately following the major anthropogenic CO2 releases began, the climate cooled.

All you have to do is go back and read scientific and even news media literature from that era; it was full of stories of how we are going into another ice age. Some people believed that then because the trend was down, down down for about 40 years straight. No plausible explanation for this cooling trend has yet emerged which still allows us to believe that CO2 drives temperatures upward.

The lack of causality between upwardly trnding CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate is well documented as is the lack of causality in the 20th century. I count this a FACT.

Originally Posted by bntii

You have mentioned this a number of times and have yet to document it.

Oh, I've documented it. Here's re-post of that documentation and some more documentation:


Professor McKitrick gave testimony to the Committee in June 2008. http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/#new

Excerpted from the McKitrick Report, cited above:

"To summarize thus far, all the models which have been used for the IPCC and CCSP reports embed
parameterizations that yield the following predictions:

» The troposphere over the tropics should exhibit greater warming (more than double the rate) than
the troposphere over the polar regions.

» The effects induced by greenhouse gases are so large relative to other forcings (positive and
negative) that the total pattern is predominantly a reflection of the contribution of greenhouse
gases.

» The tropical troposphere should have been heating up at a rate of at least 0.25 oC/decade over the
past few decades in response to historical greenhouse gas emissions. A middle-range warming
projection scenario in the IPCC report predicts warming of about 0.5 oC/decade should now be
observable in the tropical mid-troposphere...

(This is the graph apropos to the paragraph below):HadAT2Radiosond data.doc

From the color coding one can readily tell that, like the satellites, this balloon record exhibits no
overall warming pattern in the tropical troposphere: instead there is slight cooling at lower altitudes,
and minimal warming at the upper altitudes. The tropospheric warming is at a lower rate than in the troposphere as a whole and lower in comparison to the North Pole region. The CCSP text (fn 66, p.
115) points out that this data span includes the ‘end-point effect’ of the powerful 1998-1999 El Nino
so the absence of tropical tropospheric warming is an even more conspicuous discrepancy with the models."


Attachment 27503

Another nice graph of tropospheric temp anomaly.
This is the data for the above graph, which shows tropospheric temps. Note the LACK of a significant warming trend.

Originally Posted by bntii

This is one of the items I countered thoroughly & you described my posts as "obscuration"

BTW, the word is 'obfuscation' as in "The climate cooled for the 40 years after significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began because of..... VOLCANOES" Contrary to what you posted in rebuttal, this discrepancy has NEVER been resolved; the data for tropospheric temps are not flawed, there is just no warming to observe. You can easily Google up a hundred articles, papers, graphs etc. abut this; it's getting a lot of attention right now. Google the Douglass paper "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions".

Look, even AGW alarmists are admitting that the lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is a FACT, it's just that their (very predictable) response is to postulate and even more complex theory(obfuscation) as to why this GLARING CONTRADICTION to their earlier predictions is still somehow consistent with 'dangerous global warming! Can't you see that fallacy of this?

Now why can't we enter the lack of warming in the tropical troposphere as a 'FACT"



Jimbo

[bntii]

Lets try this one more time:

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The significance of this is that CO2 was already rising before humans began releasing it in quantities that matter.

You have mentioned this a number of times and have yet to document it.

Please document fully the ideal in the scientific literature that Co2 was rising before we started altering the carbon cycle.

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

the ~40 years immediately following the major anthropogenic CO2 releases began, the climate cooled.

Please document this. If you can, it would make this whole conversation somewhat odd....

Are you reading the citations I am providing?

[Jimbo1490]

Since those reports, errors have been identified and corrected in the satellite
data and other temperature observations.

This represents one of those ugly black marks against the AGW crowd; their abrogation of peer review via release of critical algorithms and adjustments. The 'other temperature observations' referred toabove are the surface measurements, which Mr Hansen adjusts, inexplicably, UPWARD, despite the obvious pre-existing upward bias of the data gathering network. Instead of holding this up as some kind of 'triumph of science', Thomas, you should hang your head in shame that your gurus continue to behave this way. This is a set of 'adjustment' algorithms that have not been explained or released, yet are absolutely critical to the debate. Oh yeah; the debate is already over. That must be why.

Have you ever even bothered to look here? With over 50% of the stations rated as '+2*C', and 13% as '+5*C', how in the HELL can you justify 'adjusting' the surface data UPWARDS as Hansen does??!!

For shame, for shame.

You should thank god above for the skeptics; you've demonstrated your COMPLETE INABILITY to sniff out a rat in the cupboard on your own. My god, man; you still want to go back defend MBH-98 again!

Un....Believable

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Dude,

Look at you own post #1503, third graph: it's right in front of you! 40 freaking years of lower temps from 1940-1980! Aren't the previous and quite widespread predictions of the coming of 'another ice age' circa the late 70's enough evidence for you? Are you saying that whole episode NEVER HAPPENED?

WTF???

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

This represents one of those ugly black marks against the AGW crowd; their abrogation of peer review via release of critical algorithms and adjustments. The 'other temperature observations' referred toabove are the surface measurements, which Mr Hansen adjusts, inexplicably, UPWARD, despite the obvious pre-existing upward bias of the data gathering network. Instead of holding this up as some kind of 'triumph of science', Thomas, you should hang your head in shame that your gurus continue to behave this way. This is a set of 'adjustment' algorithms that have not been explained or released, yet are absolutely critical to the debate. Oh yeah; the debate is already over. That must be why.
Have you ever even bothered to look here? With over 50% of the stations rated as '+2*C', and 13% as '+5*C', how in the HELL can you justify 'adjusting' the surface data UPWARDS as Hansen does??!!
For shame, for shame.
You should thank god above for the skeptics; you've demonstrated your COMPLETE INABILITY to sniff out a rat in the cupboard on your own. My god, man; you still want to go back defend MBH-98 again!

Un....Believable

And your post from two months ago:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Thomas,

The correction for the 'discontinuity' mentioned above is at the heart of this discussion. ..........The data set and resulting graph I referenced from August '07 is therefore the trustworthy set, having not been unauditably 'massaged' by Hansen, who definitely has a dog in the fight. This is like the third time I've brought this up. Each time the fraud and deceit just blows right by you, Thomas. I don't know what shenanigans it will take from the AGW crowd before you see their motives are not purely scientific, but deeply political.

my reply:

Jimbo
"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Three thousandths of one percent......
Yes that is a truly stunning deceit

In case you missed it:



If you look really carefully you can see the "fraud"- it's the green line directly under the correct data..

The most interesting part about this whole bit is why you are now questioning heating?

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The exact 'how' and 'why' we are warming up is still unknown, but it's far more plausible to look toward the solar influence for the answer. But hey, nobody's gonna get elected that way, and that's ultimately what AGW alarmism is all about

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jimbo1490]

No No Thomas, THAT'S not the fraud AT ALL!! They DID IT! THEY DUPED YOU!!!! You see, the REAL 'GOOF' page was taken down and replaced by the one you just posted! It's all well documented at Climateaudit. He saved the old page, as did a few others, which is the only way it survived. Realclimate followed suit right behind them. Shame, shame.

Can you still pick out the ~40 year cooling trend from ~1940-1980!

My post #1495 documented rising CO2 before 1800 with reliable estimates and graphs. You can either accept it or reject it, but there is your documentation.

And you're still totally OK with Hansen's adjusting the raw data from the surface stations UPWARD, then refusing to explain WHY, given the state of that network, soon to be fully documented? How can you still believe in your own ability to spot FRAUD if you can't spot this one?

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

No No Thomas, THAT'S not the fraud AT ALL!! They DID IT! THEY DUPED YOU!!!! You see, the REAL 'GOOF' page was taken down and replaced by the one you just posted! It's all well documented at Climateaudit. He saved the old page, as did a few others, which is the only way it survived. Realclimate followed suit right behind them. Shame, shame.

Can you still pick out the ~40 year cooling trend from ~1940-1980!

My post #1495 documented rising CO2 before 1800 with reliable estimates and graphs. You can either accept it or reject it, but there is your documentation.

And you're still totally OK with Hansen's adjusting the raw data from the surface stations UPWARD, then refusing to explain WHY, given the state of that network, soon to be fully documented? How can you still believe in your own ability to spot FRAUD if you can't spot this one?

Jimbo

Yes indeed Steve documented the whole thing and summarized as follows:

"So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a "significant" impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely "matter" and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS."

A tempest in a tea kettle...

He overstates "significant" impact in the US data set BTW and he is basically complaining that he should have been alerted before the data set was improved.

US Data:




Note the nearly fully obscured old data set? That means once again that the old and new set are nearly identical.

[Boston]

E gads G you may be right
readers may be checking in thinking they are getting scientific information
I think it only fare to the discussion that we correct that misunderstanding
It would be prudent of you to post the following as well with each of your subsequent posts

Readers take note
warning
The information presented in many of these posts has been proven to be no more than industry spin; published not in scientifically accredited publications, but in whats known as industry rags published by the oil and gas community. There is a direct comparison to what is happening on this thread and what the Tobacco industry did during its disinformation campaign
this warning will be repeated from time to time so that unwary readers are made aware
thank you B


I'd like to mention a Professor Robert Neel Proctor
He coined the term "agnotology" to describe the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data

from his paper at Tobacco Control 2006;15(Supplement 4 ):iv117-iv125; doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009928
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

abstract
Historians have played an important role in recent tobacco litigation, helping the industry with its defence of "common knowledge" and "open controversy". Historians re-narrate the past, creating an account for judges and juries that makes it appear that "everyone has always known" that cigarettes are harmful, meaning that smokers have only themselves to blame for their illnesses. Medical historians are also employed to argue that "honest doubts" persisted in the medical community long past the 1950s, justifying as responsible the industry’s longstanding claim of "no proof" of hazards. The industry’s experts emphasize the "good science" supported by the industry, and ignore the industry’s role in spreading doubts about the reality of tobacco hazards.

not sure if anyone here has ever been peer reviewed and published but on second page of your paper you are required by accredited bodies to list things like

Editor
Copyright
Funding
Competing interests

the Funding part should read something like this

This research project has been (source) funded, the provider having no role in study design, data collections and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

and the competing interests part

the author confirms that no competing interests exist

the hole point being to ensure that no biased data or pseudoscience gets passed off as real science

I would note the refusal of these agnotologists to admit even the most basic of accepted facts in there discussions
for instance that 97% constitutes a consensus
I chose that number because thats the percentage of climate scientists who believe the climate is warming


post #1502 and countless other posts
showed the data presented was little more than industry disinformation

very nearly every resource advocated by the dissenting opinion is found out to be industry biased

oh and G cmon it was pretty funny
we all take our share of ribbing around here
so lets just move on

[masalai]

Owwww, My head hurts and I am confused.... I plead for one post summarising and postulating a warming scenario and one post summarising the cooling postulation with references and a header of either "Warming" of "Cooling" top centre of each post so I can know which is arguing for which witch?... otherwise quite interesting if confusing for 'bystanders'?......

[Boston]

and that is precisely why posted the warning
its important for regular people who have real questions to realize a significant portion of whats being argued here is basic industry disinformation

maybe a better warning would read


readers be aware
warning
There is a direct comparison to what is happening on this thread and what the Tobacco industry did during its disinformation campaign. The information presented in many of these posts has been proven to be no more than industry disinformaiton presented by pundits of the oil and gas community and in no way representing the views of the scientific community as a hole.
thank you
enjoy the discussion
B