Global Warming Thread IX

[David Flick]

http://www.ethicsdaily.com has a word for Flick and KeithE this morning

NASA reported that the first half of the year was the hottest on record.

Fox, it appears that Parham fell for the warmist propaganda that the first half of the year (2010) was the hottest on record. Truth of the matter is that 2010 is Not the Hottest Year on record.

Anthony Watts also dismisses the claim as false. NOAA manipulated the data to create a false impression.

It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data. (Source: Paragraph 6 of this article)

It's one thing to accurately report data that shows temperature anomalies. But it's quite another thing to manipulate the data to give a false impression of reality. NOAA dishonestly manipulated the data to show temperature increases where there are no records at all. I don't expect you to comprehend what NOAA did, but I know that Keith can comprehend what occurred with the manipulation of the data.

Here's another article by Watts which shows that NOAA is behind the curve in this debate...

[Ed Edwards]

Consider this source that Bro. David quoted:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/17/glo ... ttest-year

1. I shall check the validity of this source for general purposes. Some sites are so biased that they make up data.

2. I checked a statement they made on that page:

|| If you’d like to see a graph, click here || pointing to:

http://blogg.aftonbladet.se/vaderblogge ... m-uppmatts

Which does have a chart to look at (at which to look?). To bad it is in Swedish. But I will check that out using Google Translate.

3. That chart is somewhat like the one I have direct from NASA, yet different. As soon as I brake through the language barrier to figure out what this source really means, I'll share. Off hand it looks like the the Swedish source has a hotter "first half of 2010" than does the source I keep as my desktop (NASA).

[Ed Edwards]

Tee Hee, Men's News Daily (MND) is an advocate for MRA = Men's rights activist. that is what I thought, AGW is a feminist's plot to get control of all the money in the world. I think I'll start a new rumor/conspiracy plot: the Anti-christ should rightly be called the "Anti-christess"

[Ed Edwards]

From the Men's News Daily site named above by both Dave & Myself:

|| Besides – this is summer, and what they’re talking about is weather, not climate change. ||

Tee He, 'summer' began on 21 June 2010. That means in the first six months (half a year, 26 weeks) there were 9 full days of Summer. Sorry, when you compute six monthly numbers that show the offset that month from the average for that month 1880-2009 (or more likely 1951-1980, this article does not help tell what it means, and the graph is explained [if at all] in Swedish) -- if that is all done, then one is talking about World Wide Climate Change, not the weather. So this statement is meaniningless as a point against AGW.

BTW, that MND article has a rather meaningless thingit is arguing against. NOAA said that so far, the 2010 record shows the highest May on record, highest March to May on record, and the highest average Jan-Jun on record. If things continue like this (and we shall see in the next six months) then 2010 will be the hottest year on record. Only the boldest part of the above is the facts shown in the data. The IF-THEN statement, like all future IF-THEN statements, is an opinion, not a fact. Nobody knows the future but God.

[Ed Edwards]

MND, link cited above: || According to Marc Morano at Climate Depot, the 10th of a degree difference they’re talking about is the result of cherry-picking data. ||

What 0.1ºC? no clue is given. The NOAA graph I have on my Desk Top shows only the monthly data for 2010 Jan to Jun, The data all year for 1998 and 2005 are shown. The record monthly high is given for each month. Here is the data taken from the chart. The base period is 1951-1980. The reading is the "anomaly" or off set from the base period.

Highest Monthly earth-wide temps:
Month +offset + year set (ofsets are in ºC)
Jan +0.86 unk
Feb +0.80 1998
Mar +0.84 unk (2010 was +0.83, 1% off not 1/10)
Apr +0.73 2010
May +0.65 2010 (+0.64 in 1998, 1% off not 1/10)
Jun +0.70 1998
Jul +0.68 1998
Aug +0.65 1998
Sep +0.68 2005
Oct +0.62 2005
Nov +0.69 unk
Dec +0.69 unk

Note the highest monthly offsets during the year are in Jan, Feb, and Mar -- also known as Winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

[Ed Edwards]

At this announcement by NASA:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/n ... r-minimum/

NASA reported that the first half of the year was the hottest on record.

That is where I got the chart I quoted above. Study it and see if I got the data correct. TY.

[David Flick]

Consider this source that Bro. David quoted:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/17/glo ... ttest-year

I shall check the validity of this source for general purposes. Some sites are so biased that they make up data.

Yeah, Ed, your right about that. The RealClimate.Org and Skeptical Science websites lead the pack on producing biased pro-AGW propaganda. Wikipedia is probably the most notorious purveyor of pro-AGW propaganda. Regarding the AGW debate, Wikipedia is so bad that they were forced to fire William Connolley, their their lead climate editor. All Connolley did was create or rewrite 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia as a website administrator allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it. More than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred. Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. He turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. Here's a blow by blow account of what Connolley did to Anthony Watts. It doesn't get any more dishonest or biased than this. As you noted, consider the source...

[Ed Edwards]

I feel like a blue person in a blue county in a red state in a blue country???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inho ... tal_issues

|| Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo[17] ||

17 Footnote:
|| ^ "James Inhofe proves "flat Earth" doesn't refer to Oklahoma.". Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, April 13, 2004. ||

Strangely, I voted for Senator Inhofe in 1996 (special election to replace Senator Boren who had become President of the University of Oklahoma [OU]); 1996; 2002; and 2008. Never again. He comes up for re-election in 2014.

[David Flick]

1I feel like a blue person in a blue county in a red state in a blue country???

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inho ... tal_issues

|| Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo[17] ||

17 Footnote:
"James Inhofe proves "flat Earth" doesn't refer to Oklahoma.". Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, April 13, 2004. ||

3Strangely, I voted for Senator Inhofe in 1996 (special election to replace Senator Boren who had become President of the University of Oklahoma [OU]); 1996; 2002; and 2008. Never again. He comes up for re-election in 2014.

1) I'm sorry you're so blue today. You're probably spending way too much time worrying about AGW and catastrophic climate change. Cheer up, my friend. Nothing bad or evil is around the corner wrt global warming/climatre change. Don't believe all that propaganda about the catastrophic climate change stuff. You're not in any physical danger. It's the middle of July and the temperatures are high. You probably sweat a lot when you go out side but that's to be expected. We're smack dab in the middle of the hot season of the year. It's called "Summer." Happens every year without fail. We've been having summers since before man named the seasons. Hang in there for a couple of months and things will cool off nicely...

2) Ed, I don't put a lot of stock in what Wikipedia publishes. Actually, I don't put any stock in what Wikipedia publishes. The Wiki "Environmental Issues" section you posted is typical of the biased propaganda the AGW alarmists have been pushing for the past decade or so. Take for example the following quote from the article:

In December 2009, Inhofe told aCNN’s “Situation Room” program that the bClimatic Research Unit e-mails show that the science behind climate change "has been pretty well debunked." The cfact checking organization d Politifact econcluded Inhofe's statement to be false, "Independent of CRU's data, agencies and academics all over the world are coming to essentially the same conclusion: Climate change is happening."f[27]

1. First, with the exception of one, every link in the paragraph traces back to another Wiki article which is biased in some way toward AGW alarmism.
   
   
2. Second, the Situation Room is an afternoon/early evening newscast on CNN and CNN International hosted by Wolf Blitzer. CNN is as liberal as it gets. Wolf Blitzer is a second-rate commentator whose credibility on global warming/climate change is next to zero. Skeptics know where a discussion on the topic will go when Wikipedia quotes something from Blitzer and/or CNN.
   
   
3. Third, the "fact checking organization" is operated by PolitiFact.Com. Politifact published this article, which is the final link in the Wiki article above. (More about Politifact.com in the next entry down.)
   
   
4. Fourth, PolitiFact.Com is the creation of the St. Petersburg Times, which, on global warming/climate change, is an uber-liberal publication that is totally in the tank for the AGW alarmists. You can bet your bottom dollar that "facts" about AGW that are published there are most likely to be fiction or alarmist opinion.
   
   
5. Fifth, the so-called "PolitiFfact truthometer" is dead wrong. Inhofe is correct. The climategate emails exposed propaganda that was being pushed by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, the CRU. You should take time to read Climategate: The Crutape Letters. The information is all there. They were cooking the books on the climate change stuff. In spite of the several whitewash cover-ups done by the so-called "independent investigators," catastrophic man-made global warming is non-existent...
   
   Sidebarnote: Saw an article this afternoon that debunks the notion that this year is, or will, be a record warm year. The conclusions are: 1. We are not going to set a record this year (for the whole year), 2. Hansen has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity, 3. Temperatures have risen slower than Hansen forecast for a carbon free 21st century. Read the article here...
6. Sixth, [Footnote #27] Yes, climate change is happening. No one disputes that fact. But man-made climate change (AGW) is nonexistent. No one --not one person on the globe-- has conclusively proven that climate change has been caused by human activity. That's the propaganda which Inhofe has successful debunked.
   
   Conclusion: Any link about global warming that appears on Wikipedia, including the one you posted, will be biased in favor of AGW. You can most likely credit William Connolley and his former associates for the biased reporting

3) Aww, don't worry about Inhofe. He's no threat to you. His views may be a major threat to your views but when it's all said and done, you'll discover that he's spot on relative to to the climate change issue.

[David Flick]

.
.

July 22

Global warming alarmists in full retreat as skeptics attack greenhouse theory
By Kirk Myers

Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The latest target of the Warmists: Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, a mathematician and leading critic of the global warming theory, a.k.a. "climate change." Monckton was recently mocked and browbeaten in a 115-slide presentation by John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His "hit and run" slide-show attack was an attempt to discredit a presentation that Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009.

Monckton replied with a powerful rebuttal that, point by point, eviscerated Abraham's embarrassingly dishonest production. Monckton called on Abraham and the university to issue a formal apology, remove the libelous presentation from the Internet, and donate $110,000 to a Haitian charity as compensation for the damage done to his reputation. Continue reading...

[David Flick]

.
.

• NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze

Exerpt from article linked above:

The NOAA models predict a major cooling for the Arctic this coming winter. Indeed they show a significant cooling globally. These models have been converging on an Arctic deep freeze for a few weeks now. Already the mercury north of 80° latitude has taken a dip back down to the freezing point, see DMI chart:

[KeithE]

.
.

• NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze

Exerpt from article linked above:

The NOAA models predict a major cooling for the Arctic this coming winter. Indeed they show a significant cooling globally. These models have been converging on an Arctic deep freeze for a few weeks now. Already the mercury north of 80° latitude has taken a dip back down to the freezing point, see DMI chart:

David's linked article is not from NOAA as he leads you to believe. It is from a German anti-environment blogger http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/

Here'sNOAA's summary of their own June 10 Report.

Gosselin extracted one statement

Sea surface temperature continued to decrease across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2010, consistent with the end of El Niño. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the northern hemisphere summer 2010.

ignoring much in the report that is "alarming" and even fails to mention the highlight wrt to Arctic ice namely

Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers) during June. This is 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent

Gosselin challenges Breitbart in dishonest cherry picking and unwarranted headlines - "NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze". Right wingers are everywhere squeezing juice out of those cherries and creating sound bites w/o substantiating truth.


Now, it is apparently true we are heading for a cooler period in the short term due to developing La Nina. But it wont return us to normal pre-industrial or even 1975 temps globally.

One has to look at the larger trend over several cycles of La Nina/El Nino

and what you'll see is an upward trend (~ 0.17C/decade) since 1975 oscillating about that trend according El Nino/La Nina conditions (plotted on bottom, red in El Nino, blue is La Nina) and volcanic actions. Note this plot is only through 2009 - the anomaly increased to 0.82C by March 2010 (off the graph above) and has reduced to 0.58C through June 2010. The global data is here

[David Flick]

.
.

• Record cold hits South America; carbon dioxide blamed
  
  
• Sea Level Shenanigans

.
.

[David Flick]

Gosselin challenges Brightbart in dishonest cherry picking and unwarranted headlines - "NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze". Right wingers are everywhere squeezing juice out of those cherries and creating sound bites w/o substantiating truth.

Dishonest cherry picking and unwarranted headlines, eh?? Keith you're nearly as good as those Wikipedia editors when it comes to interpreting internet articles...

[KeithE]

Gosselin challenges Breitbart in dishonest cherry picking and unwarranted headlines - "NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze". Right wingers are everywhere squeezing juice out of those cherries and creating sound bites w/o substantiating truth.

Dishonest cherry picking and unwarranted headlines, eh?? Keith you're nearly as good as those Wikipedia editors when it comes to interpreting internet articles...

I go to the DATA, not un-refereed "internet articles" ala Watts/Gosselin/Breitbart. Wiki is at least refereed (imperfectly no doubt but better than say Fox News). Nor do I pay any creedance to obvious demonization efforts by the RW (eg. Connally). Remember 97% of the climatologists deeply into global warming science are AGWers. Connally reports majorian views.

do not count much with me. Deal with the DATA David.

[David Flick]

1I go to the DATA, not un-refereed "internet articles" ala Watts/Gosselin/Breitbart. Wiki is at least refereed (imperfectly no doubt but better than say Fox News). Nor do I pay any creedance to obvious demonization efforts by the RW (eg. Connally). Remember 97% of the climatologists deeply into global warming science are AGWers. Connally reports majorian views.

2 do not count much with me. Deal with the DATA David.

1) Keith, it's patently false to claim that 97% of climatologists " deeply into global warming science" are AGWers. Pure BC propaganda...

2) I do deal with the data, Keith. Your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth...

[KeithE]

1) Keith, it's patently false to claim that 97% of climatologists " deeply into global warming science" are AGWers. Pure BC propaganda...

2) I do deal with the data, Keith. Your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth...

I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.
The 2008 poll

Question 2 was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

And it was 97% of climatoligists as well in an independent 2007 poll that believed in GW (only 5% believed human activity does not contribute to GW)
The 2007 poll

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure

.

If anything the climatologists are becoming more sure of AGW while many of the rightleaning public (and some others) have fallen to the misleading lies of the denialists.

Deal with that DATA before you run off at the keyboard with another empty diatribe like "Your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth" or hand out another baloney cheese since you cannot prove your points rationally.

[Howard V]

Could it be that those most involved in the GW(AGW)/CC stuff think highly of their conclusions because they have a vested interest in thinking highly of their work and conclusions? Human beings are well known for this kind of thinking, even if they are "scientists." To put it another way, we tend to be biased, positively, in favor of what WE do or are involved with.

[KeithE]

Could it be that those most involved in the GW(AGW)/CC stuff think highly of their conclusions because they have a vested interest in thinking highly of their work and conclusions? Human beings are well known for this kind of thinking, even if they are "scientists." To put it another way, we tend to be biased, positively, in favor of what WE do or are involved with.

Could be Howard but their work is highly reviewed by each other with a strong tenacity. And the DATA is so independently gathered and cumulative that their findings are no doubt right.

Much more likely - those that are against AGW and any regulation, are the ones whose motives are questionable. We are inclined to deflect anything that challenges what we DO, our lifestyles.

[David Flick]

.
.

• Desperate days for the warmists

Entire article quoted below. Emphases mine:

Desperate days for the warmists
By Christopher Booker

Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world. Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years. The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future "such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent". He didn't explain what might have caused the similar hot weather 130 years ago.

Meanwhile, notably little attention has been paid to the disastrous chill which has been sweeping South America thanks to an inrush of air from the Antarctic, killing hundreds in the continent's coldest winter for years.

In America, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been trumpeting that, according to its much-quoted worldwide temperature data, the first six months of this year were the hottest ever recorded. But expert analysis on Watts Up With That, the US science blog, shows that NOAA's claimed warming appears to be strangely concentrated in those parts of the world where it has fewest weather stations. In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all.

A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the "Climategate" scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been "vindicated". But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.

The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about. Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill – bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU's former director – an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry.

A third technique, most familiar of all, has been to fall back on the dog-eared claim that leading sceptics only question warmist orthodoxy because they have been funded by "Big Oil" and the "fossil fuel industry". Particularly bizarre was a story last week covering the front page and an inside page of one newspaper, headed "Oil giant gives £1 million to fund climate sceptics".

The essence of this tale was that Exxon Mobil, the oil giant that is the world's third biggest company, last year gave "almost £1 million" to four US think-tanks. These had gone on to dismiss the Climategate inquiries as "whitewashes".

It was hardly necessary to be given money by Exxon to see what was dubious about those inquiries. Not one of the knowledgeable sceptics who have torn them apart has received a cent from Big Oil. But what made this particularly laughable was that the penny-packets given to think-tanks that have been largely irrelevant to the debate are utterly dwarfed by the colossal sums poured into the army of groups and organisations on the other side of the argument.

Even the big oil companies have long been putting their real money into projects dedicated to showing how they are in favour of a "low-carbon economy". In 2002 Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford University to fund research into energy sources needed to fight global warming. BP, which rebranded itself in 2004 as "Beyond Petroleum", gave $500 million to fund similar research.

The Grantham Institute provides another example. It was set up at the LSE and Imperial College with £24 million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire, to advise governments and firms on how to promote and invest in ways to "fight climate change", now one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the world.

Compare the funding received by a handful of think-tanks to the hundreds of billions of dollars lavished on those who speak for the other side by governments, foundations, multinational corporations, even Big Oil, and the warmists are winning hands down. But only financially: they are not winning the argument.

.
.

[KeithE]

David,

As for Booker, he believes smoking is not hazardous to your health; he believes asbestos is not harmful in anyway; and now is onto the anti GW kick.
Christopher Booker

I have no doubt you can find other idealogues like Booker who will spout off anti-AGW propaganda/prose by the score (Watts, Monckton, Horner, Singer, Ball, Morner ...). But they are not primary sources of DATA or research. They are either paid-off by big business interests (interested in short-term profits) or more likely such free-market idealogues that they are against any form of regulation (even if earth itself is being put in peril). They search any info to find hints that will support them and are not honest brokers. THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THESE PEOPLE. And many are duped by these people due to some perceived threat to their lifestyle/wealth (when the opposite is actually the truth).

Answer with DATA or I'm going to ignore it.

[Ed Edwards]

Bro. David: // 1) I'm sorry you're so blue today \\

Thank you for your concern. My statement was:

1. I feel like a blue person in a blue county in a red state in a blue country???

This is current presidential election code colors meaning:

I feel like a Democratic person in a Democratic county in a Republican state in a Democratic countRy

Yes, Cleveland County (Moore, Norman) is a Democratic county,
Oklahoma is a Republican state,
USA is a Democratic country (well, maybe until November elections"?
I actually am still a registered Republican.

[David Flick]

David,

As for Booker, he believes smoking is not hazardous to your health; he believes asbestos is not harmful in anyway; and now is onto the anti GW kick.
Christopher Booker

So?? What do his views on smoking/asbestos have to do with anthropogenic global warming? Furthermore, do you really expect me to believe what Wikipedia says about climate skeptics??

I have no doubt you can find other idealogues like Booker who will spout off anti-AGW propaganda/prose by the score (Watts, Monckton, Horner, Singer, Ball, Morner ...). But they are not primary sources of DATA or research. They are either paid-off by big business interests (interested in short-term profits) or more likely such free-market idealogues that they are against any form of regulation (even if earth itself is being put in peril). They search any info to find hints that will support them and are not honest brokers. THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THESE PEOPLE. And many are duped by these people due to some perceived threat to their lifestyle/wealth (when the opposite is actually the truth).

Actually, the truth is not in the propaganda published by the AGWers...

Answer with DATA or I'm going to ignore it.

For the umptheenth time, I do answer with data.

[KeithE]

So?? What do his views on smoking/asbestos have to do with anthropogenic global warming?

It speaks to his idealogy of some coarse hatred of regulation even when scoentific/health facts are obvious to those who have an open mind.

Furthermore, do you really expect me to believe what Wikipedia says about climate skeptics??

I'm not trying to convince the unconvincible Flick who nontheless would no doubt quote Wikipedia if it suited his viewpoint. Wiki gives both good and bad of people and when giving the bad is does so professionally not with dripping sarcasm like most of David's/other denialist's quotes/cartoons.

Answer with DATA or I'm going to ignore it.

For the umptheenth time, I do answer with data.[/quote]

Occassionally, but the Booker quote had no DATA. And I note that David's data is often far from global or complete timewise. Just isolated snippets from clearly denialists sources.

[David Flick]

1I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- 2the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.

3The 2008 poll

Question 2 was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

4And it was 97% of climatoligists as well in an independent 2007 poll that believed in GW (only 5% believed human activity does not contribute to GW)
5The 2007 poll

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

6If anything the climatologists are becoming more sure of AGW while many of the right leaning public (and some others) have fallen to the misleading lies of the denialists.

7Deal with that DATA before you run off at the keyboard with another empty diatribe like "Your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth" or hand out another baloney cheese since you cannot prove your points rationally.

1) Perhaps you don't personally make up the "DATA," but 97% of the data you post is decidedly AGW propaganda. And no, you didn't have it right. You may have had it right according to the data you quoted, but it comes from AGW sources, which are generally untrue. (More about this in subsequent points.)

2) That's a ridiculous comment. If you actually believe the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW, you're living in a fantasy world. It turns out that the more a scientist is involved in GW/CC scientific work, the more likely he/she is to be a skeptic. You're just flat wrong...

3) I did a bit of research on that link. The graph comes from an article by Peter Doran and a graduate student by the name of Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.

4) Comments about the "97% formula" in this this wild piece.

1. In the first place, only one portion (the "General Public" data) of the graph is from a legitimate source (Gallup Poll).
2. Secondly, Doran and his graduate assistant are biased to AGW and participants in the survey were all AGWers. No small wonder Doran could come up with such a massively skewed survey. It's AGW propaganda at it's very best.
3. Thirdly, the blogger (Tim Lambert) who posted the blog attempted to lead his readers to believe that 97% of ALL active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming. The claim is hogwash. The survey included only 77 active climatologists. And being a skewed survey, there were supposedly only 2 out of the 77 in the survey who refuted the notion that GW is caused by human activity.
4. For the sake of argument, let's put the essence of Doran's skewed survey to the test. If 97% of all climate scientists believe that GW is caused by human activity, it would mean that 97 out of 100 climate scientists believe GW is caused by human activity. Only 3 out of 100 do not believe that GW is caused by human activity. Consider just one gathering of climate skeptics (the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York). About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives attended the event. Admittedly not all were climate scientists, but there were 80 presenters. For the sake of argument and taking Doran's 97% AGWers/3% "deniers" formula, let's say that only 200 of those attending the 2009 ICCC were climate scientists. And suppose that the 200 represented only 3% of all "denier" climate scientists. The formula would compute something like 9,700 AGWer climate scientists. But that falls woefully short of the number of registered skeptic climate scientists. There are now more than 34,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that global warming is probably natural and not a crisis (Source: bottom of this page) You can deny it all you want, Keith, but there are far more skeptical climate scientists, (with credibility I might add) than there are AGW climate scientists.

5) This poll is more than 2 years old. It's outdated. The AGWers have taken a hit everywhere, including in the Harris Poll. Today only 41% think it is 'a very serious problem.' E.g. Big Drop in Those Who Believe That Global Warming Is Coming.

6) Not so... The misleading lies are coming from the AGWers. Most notably from Al Gore & company...

7) I have presented rational (and documented) material in this and previous posts. I will continue to say that your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth. Truth is on my side, not yours...