Daily temperatures are irrelevant, they really are  .   It is the long run temperatures that matter.  I just hate conclusions when Fox News comes on and says the high today is 32 degrees, Where is global warming now!  Heat wave comes through, eh just an ordinary day...  

Guess we will find out in the long run, I really hope we are wrong about global warming though. 

He's joking. Fuzzy's on our side.  

I don't recall it being that cold once this decade. Again that kind of stuff is merely anecdotal but every time it goes below freezing someone will inevitably say "where's all that global warming we keep hearing about".

I agree that they may not particularly care *why* a fairly large portion of Americans doubt global warming, but I certainly think they care whether that doubt results in another Kyoto situation. Although that map needs a bit of work - add another color for countries that signed the treaty then took no discernable action to meet it - most of the map would turn to whatever color you chose for that option. That's why China is being so obstinant in this round - they're willing to agree to cuts, but they don't want anyone to have any ability to verify that they actually make those cuts.

I hear the same, because we just had one of the coldest summers in history here. When I was growing up it went over 100 several days each summer, I don't think we topped 90 this year. But as you say, anecdotal, and one year doesn't prove anything.

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

While Michaels doesn't have a spotless record, and now works for the Cato Institute (and thus sits two seats down from Bernie Madoff at Satan's dinner parties), he *was* a research climatologist for nearly three decades. Note he supports AGW in theory, is skeptical of the "consensus" values in terms of severity, and got railroaded out of his faculty positition by the people who whote the CRU emails, often referenced by name.

But of course he's just another annoying crank who knows nothing about climate science, and has never gotten himself published in any sort of peer-reviewed journal.

My father always maintained summers were always warmer when he was younger then have been recently. He was born in 1920, and I note from my local station averages that 1933, 34 and 35 all had warm summers - when he was 13-15 years old. Interestingly 27, 28 and 29 were all much cooler than normal.

What I remember from a similar age was walking to school everyday, breaking ice which topped puddles. 1968, 69 and 70 all had winters with overnight lows averaging below zero...

Memory cannot be relied on for perceptions of climate change as the changes are very small. The records I have here go back to 1883 and make interesting reading. If you stepped back a hundred years you'd notice very little difference in temperatures. What you do see now is more frequent occurences of warmer winters (at least here in the UK). The only significant change is the average temperature in February which is now much higher. Warmer summers are more frequent too. But the ups and downs are still there. This December is turning out quite cold, but that isn't out of the ordinary, it is to be expected. The last two summers have also been disappointing - again the historical records suggest that is normal for here.

Records of this kind are only a small part of a larger picture. Warming oceans, changing current patterns, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, all come together along with temperature records to form that larger picture. What each of us sees though is only our local bit, which may be a non event. Stepping back and looking wider is the hard part and the majority will never be able to do that.

The scientific consensus that accepts the two premises of AGW, which are that the planet is warming and that warming is *primarily* caused by human activity, is based on the published statements of the following national and international scientific organizations whose overwhelming majority of literally tens of thousands of member scientists agree that AGW is occurring.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

The 32 national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

African Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

World Meteorological Organization

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Society for Microbiology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters

The Wildlife Society (international)

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Medical Association

Australian Medical Association

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

International Association for Great Lakes Research

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

American Association of State Climatologists

American Geological Institute

American Institute of Professional Geologists

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Now if you can explain how a handful of climate scientists control the entire peer reviewed literature of the bulk of the world's scientists then again *perhaps* you may have a point.

I decided to play your game and randomly picked one of the organizations you listed to see what their 'published statement' was on AGW.  I threw a dart & hit the European Science Foundation.

What I could find @ the ESF website:

• No 'published statement' of any sort on AGW and no reference to any sort of position paper on the subject.
• Several generic pages on climate change, each a high-school level regurgitation of basic concepts, with what references to AGW were present solely sourced to IPCC.
• No indication that any sort of 'assessment' of the science was done by ESF other than to agree with it.

If it's there and just buried so deep I'm too dumb to find it, let me know.

I did find this somewhat interesting.

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.^[26]

26. European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment - Ecosystems Approach pp. 7-10

Every organization that I listed in reply #432 has a quoted statement along with a footnote reference to the source of the quote.

Thanks for playing.

Unfortunately the ESF requires payment for it's publications plus you cannot order anything older than two years. I would assume that the publication would be available via other means but as you said it's probably buried deep. In any case I may have called you an asshole but I never considered you dumb. Just because it's not obviously available does not mean it doesn't exist or has changed.

Perhaps you could thow another dart.

OK I found it. The precise quote is from page 5 of the document which is actually on page 10 of the pdf at the bottom of the first column and continuing on the top of the second column.

Again, thanks for playing along.

This crap is really getting old.  Mumbles, it's time for your consensus nonsense to die.  A statement by an association is horse shit.  They're political bodies, they don't necessarily reflect the opinions of their actual members.  Or do you think congress reflects the views of the country when they can't break a 20% approval rating?

Whoops...

Whoops again!  Seriously now, firing them?  To think you're so stuck on the government backed scientists being less corrupted by outside influences...

And again...  Damn those physicists!

Again...

Blah blah blah...

Ugh, really, this is getting boring...

Ok, I reached my limit, research on satellite is a bitch.  Strike off all the bullshit on your list, half of that isn't even arbitrary.  The AMA for fucks sake?  What do medical doctors know about climatology?  The AMA can't even speak for doctors.  They've got a fraction of the membership these days because they backstabbed them all and rail roaded the medical industry when congress gave them rights to the medical code system.  They're a lobbying organization interested in increasing their own cash flow.

Once you get rid of all the duplicate umbrella organizations and completely unrelated fields, you'll have a shrinking list of members.  Then go through and look for actual research done, instead of board statements that they agree with the results of the work the very few, and apparently corrupt, scientists have done.

Calculating the half-life wrong is too obvious a mistake for peer reviewed scientists to all be making it unintentionally.  This is a lie.

They change the number every time they come out with one.  Millenia, decades, centuries, they're making it up.  The CO2 is not in the stratosphere, if it were, the stratosphere would be warming.  The CO2 is in the lower troposphere, the half-life is under a decade, not decades, let alone longer.  If it were warming the stratosphere, we would be experiencing "global cooling" instead.  Please get this right and start ignoring sources of information that can't do the basics, ok?

However from http://www.aapg.org/explorer/president/2007/03mar.cfm.

"Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position."

"The current policy statement [i.e. total AGW denial] is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."

And from http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm.

"Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

While I agree that this does not represent the most glowing endorsement of AGW out there remember that these are the American Association of fucking Petroleum Geologists. Up until this point they were the last organization of any national or international significance to hold a dissenting opinion to AGW. Their previous climate statement was full out AGW denial but they were forced by their membership to at least adopt a position that acknowledged the scientific consensus and merely claimed that "These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

Whoops... indeed. OK what's next?

"To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."

Plus I don't recall listing individual state climatologists in my list so the point of this is what?

Whoops again! indeed. Next?

Try reading http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/climate.cfm.

The open letter that you referenced was in fact signed by only 6 members of the American Physical Society although it made (undocumented) claims of representing "more than more than 50 current and former members of APS." Note that the  American Physical Society currently represents over 47,000 members. Even if the undocumented claim of 50 current and former members is accurate this hardly represents a groundswell of support.

Also while this open letter obviously will be addressed (good luck with that, 50 out of 47,000) the current APS statement on climate change stands.

From http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

And again... indeed. I'm sensing a trend here.

"THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions."

Give me a fucking break. THREE fucking senior Japanese scientists "strongly questioned." You can't fucking be serious. THREE. So what organization on my list do these THREE fucking senior Japanese scientists actually represent?

Again... indeed. I think you're getting a bad case of cabin fever.

No official results from a non official organization. How compelling.

Blah blah blah... indeed. Because that's all this is.

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained ... "

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

OK that's enough for me. I agree, this really is getting boring. You're wasting my time, you're wasting your own time and you're wasting the time of anyone reading this thread although anyone still reading this thread is probably already wasting their time.

According to the wiki article "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions."

I repeat for the umpteenth time "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

Pwnage from Mumblefratz again. All hail our lord and savior!

The International Union of Geological Sciences was not on my list, their website is http://www.iugs.org/. I'm guessing that the reason that this organization is not on the list is because as far as I can determine this organization has no position statement on climate change although as Daiwa suggested earlier it might just be buried deep so if anyone else can find any such thing I would definitely be interested.

However based on the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_of_Geological_Sciences it appears that the IUGS is sort of a holding company of which many other national and international geological organizations are members. In this case I would expect that many of these member organizations do in fact have position statements on climate change and in many cases are in fact listed in my list.

Which is due to some undersea volcanic activitiy in the north atlantic (north of where it was expected to cease) that keeps the gulf stream warmer longer...incidently melting the artic ice for the same reasons..

The majority indeed are by and large dumb this is true... can't fight ignorance without healthy doses of truth.  With backbone.

Tell the truth.  It might lose you a job today...and gain you one tommorrow.

The IUGS looks to be a political/funding organization whose members are nations.  Not a 'scientific' organization in the sense you are looking for, if I understand correctly.

Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".

They are all members of  the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, but do not claim to speak for the entire group. Here's why:

Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.

No, they are not the entire community. However, take a look at Michael Mann's CV, most of his publications go through about a dozen peer-reviewed journals. While I couldn't find the full listing of work by Phil Jones, the articles listed on Wikipedia are all from the same journals. Searches on others listed in the climategate emails list all the same journals. Basically all the climate research goes through a relative handful of "gatekeeper" publications.

This wouldn't be a problem except those two have a track record of an unhealthy level of influence on what does and does not get through the editorial boards of those journals. While they themselves do not control the journals, they have shown they can effectively choose who does. So no, a conspiracy to skew climate research would not need to include all the members of the organizations you listed. Most of those organizations don't conduct their own independant research, anyway - they trust the research published in the journals the CRU people control.

Willy, Mumble doesn't care.  For him it's not what a scientist says, it's whether the statement has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval - in this case, the 'consensus' of the pseudoscience of climatology, which is all about knowing what you want to find and adjusting data to make a statistical model show what you want to find.  This is just his boredom-reliever.

Yeah, if he cared he'd listen to all the obvious things we keep telling him.  It is fun though.

Mumbles, read the open letter.  It's what you're supposed to do befrore you write something off.  I don't really care how many people have signed it, it's a factual inaccuracy to use the support of an organization as proof or support of the viewpoint when they obviously haven't done their own research to verify.  The criticism in that letter is not that AGW doesn't exist, it's that they have not independantly verified before going along with the word of one political body.

Delude yourself all you want to, but you're going to have to start spending a lot more effort.  The crest already broke and this wave of idiocy is falling apart.  The gross factual problems with the theory are too large to keep hidden, like CO2 lasting for thousands of years despite the warming from it only occuring in the lower troposphere, where it's rapidly reabsorbed into plants and water bodies.  I'll assume this point will, yet again, go unrefuted.