Back to climate. Co2 jumps up and down without us humans around:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201174225.htm-New research suggests the arrival of plants cooled the Earth enough for ice ages-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-ice-ages.html

Land-based measures of temperature covers 30% of the global surface. These recorders are poorly sited, affected by UHI effects (urban heat islands), and the only source of rising temperature measurements. Be skeptical of all the IPCC global warming hype:

http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/06/salvaging_the_mythology_of_manca...

Be very skeptical of computer models for air temperature, which do not take everything around the Earth into account. Do these folks really know what they are studying?:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate

http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/06/salvaging_the_mythology_of_manca...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590.html?KEYWORDS...

Furthermore there are liberal and conservative views of proposed theories, as rigid as the folks in Congress in the USA.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058111041127168.html?KEYWORDS...

Scientific research has exploded, but is it real, and is peer review really helping or hindering? Comments, Matt?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201174225.htm

There is a push to correct this issue.

http://www.nature.com/news/psychology-must-learn-a-lesson-from-fraud-case-1.9513

Remember that my overall state in regards to the mess is: Confused. For every good argument, there's a good counter-argument. To me this of course makes for spirited debate, but it also makes it hard to devise clear-cut policy in regards.

Remember David, I'm a fence-sitter?

I know. Just stay very skeptical, and vote against spending money until we all know what we logically should do.

Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.

If you have 10 minutes,

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI

Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.

Matt: You have cherry-picked one U-tube video with a few papers on one side. Lindzen is still producing papers that say he is correct. The last 10-11 years the temps have been flat and the sun spot cycle is very low.
Sallie Baliunis would strongly disagree with you, and she is a leading solar expert. I can always pick the other side. This is a huge argument with no clear result.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

And Michael Mann (hockey stick) says her work is totally flawed

Remember the phony IPCC assertions. The rule is still follow the money.

Remember that my overall state in regards to the mess is: Confused. For every good argument, there's a good counter-argument. To me this of course makes for spirited debate, but it also makes it hard to devise clear-cut policy in regards.

Remember David, I'm a fence-sitter?

Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.

If you have 10 minutes,

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI

Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.

Matt: You have cherry-picked one U-tube video with a few papers on one side. Lindzen is still producing papers that say he is correct. The last 10-11 years the temps have been flat and the sun spot cycle is very low.
Sallie Baliunis would strongly disagree with you, and she is a leading solar expert. I can always pick the other side. This is a huge argument with no clear result.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

And Michael Mann (hockey stick) says her work is totally flawed

Remember the phony IPCC assertions. The rule is still follow the money.

Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.

If you have 10 minutes,

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI

Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.

No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:

Fair enough. now we are having a valid discussion.

1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)

No question. There are a hugh number of factors, only some of which are well understood. For example most Co2 is volcano produced.

2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.

I am confident that humans are somewhat a part of the cause. How large is that somewhat, i don't know.

2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.

Correct

3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)

Of course, but listen to Bjorn Lomborg and use new money-requiring processes sparingly until we are sure what the best technologies will be for the future. I think ocean wave production of electricity may be an excellent one.

I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.

Agreed. But using UHI's has exaggerated the trend.

As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...

I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?

Then why has the IPCC produced such phony stuff like the disappearing glaciers by 2030?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Did you see Spencers credentials?

Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco?

PR companies make money. Not all their clients have the same politics and philosophies.

Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.

My reading says the sun cycles and sun spots are not debunked.

Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.

I know the acid rain story, not of infinite dispersal.

And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)

Mainly African. And carbon-based fuel is still making 80% of our energy and will have to for some time into the future or we will use up all our capital.

Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?

You keep ignoring the UN IPCC and the third world with its hand out. It is more than just Mann. (Have you given study to the hockey stick debacle). It is liberal governments that want more and more control through blaming C02., and by the way Limbaugh quotes Roy Spencer as his guiding scientist and advisor.

No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:

1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)
2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.
2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.
3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)

I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.

As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...

I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

You are arguing with me from very superficial study of the issue. I have a paper from many years ago at the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, on line, reviewing Pat Michaels' objections., "Satanic Gases". A LoneStar college discussion group (mainly professors) to which I belonged when in Tomball.

Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco? That might not seem pertinent, but it informs me that Watts might himself be in the lucrative business of selling books--of which it can be easy to do when controversial subjects are broached.

Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.

Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.

And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/

Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?

You keep ignoring the UN IPCC and the third world with its hand out. It is more than just Mann. (Have you given study to the hockey stick debacle). It is liberal governments that want more and more control through blaming C02., and by the way Limbaugh quotes Roy Spencer as his guiding scientist and advisor.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

You are arguing with me from very superficial study of the issue. I have a paper from many years ago at the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, on line, reviewing Pat Michaels' objections., "Satanic Gases". A LoneStar college discussion group (mainly professors) to which I belonged when in Tomball.

If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.

Where's the conspiracy, David?

The conspiracy is a combination of points: The grants that Mann and others get, the billions the third world wants and the phony IPCC with all of its errors and faked data. Maybe conspiracy is the wrong word by definition, but politics and money have gotten some interesting bedfellows in the same boat.

All I'm saying is this: Accusations of fraud in the science have been flying around for at least 6 years, with no real fruit. Scientists are really good at tearing each other down.

Let's not also forget the cloning hoax.

So Mann gets a grant of 3.0M. How much of that pays his mortgage? How much of it for further research? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure there's rules in place to prevent you from using grant money to buy yourself nice things. I know at UNMC we had to keep grant money separate for those researchers working on embryonic cell lines due to Bush's archaic prohibitions. So... to me the argument of "There's a lot of money" doesn't really ring true. Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?

[EDIT]
Public money requires auditors.

Obviously it doesn't always work, but military contractors often face a cut of funding when research doesn't pan out.

If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.

Where's the conspiracy, David?

The conspiracy is a combination of points: The grants that Mann and others get, the billions the third world wants and the phony IPCC with all of its errors and faked data. Maybe conspiracy is the wrong word by definition, but politics and money have gotten some interesting bedfellows in the same boat.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo

^^^I would like your thoughts on this.

[EDIT]

This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.

Here is another view from the wsj:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?KEYWORDS...

your guy is gullible, and I don't know why.

If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. In fact, the only judgment he makes in both videos are on the political pundits. (Idiots like Limbaugh and Inhofe.) He makes reference to other climate skeptics that have appeared in the peer reviewed literature, and addresses their points. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.

If you watched the 20 minutes, you would also know that one of the two emailers was criticizing Mann's data back in '98. Where's the conspiracy, David?

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo

^^^I would like your thoughts on this.

[EDIT]

This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.

Here is another view from the wsj:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?KEYWORDS...

your guy is gullible, and I don't know why.

For my real reply, I must ask you, how does science work if it doesn't work by consensus?

Don't technical experts need to agree that a theory is an answer, for it to be an accepted theory? For example, isn't it true that more than one doctor must agree that strep is caused by bacteria in order for all doctors to claim that strep is caused by bacteria? Or is Jenny McCarthy right that thimerosol causes Autism?

Consensus leads to directions for advancing research, but lock-step consensus is what I object to, limiting the spread of directions.