http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

Take a read then explain where these scientists A) are corporate schills, or B) are delusional and credible.

Remember Global warming is a theory that has not been proven. The computer models have not even been able to predict the past with any degree of accuracy, so why would anyone trust them to predict the future?

Personally, I recycle because it makes economic sense. I drive a fuel efficient car because the cost of gas is one of the single largest items in my budget.

But, after reading hundreds of articles, research papers and theses, I have to say that the vast majority of GW alarmists don’t offer their data and testing methodologies up for peer review. You are supposed to take their word for the validity and accuracy of their data and methods. Also, I find it disingenuous to dismiss the findings of anyone who has ever accepted money from industry (energy companies, manufacturing, mining, etc.) but accept as gospel the findings of people whose entire funding, and the continuation of their funding is reliant upon the results of their research. Most of these scientists are being paid by government grants and grants from various “interested parties”. These include large political donors who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research.

Seems that some people want to claim that there is a “consensus” that GW is real and man made. The last time there was a consensus on scientific matters, the belief was that the world was flat.

Let’s not forget that the ’scientific community’ already tried to scare us a year ago by predicting that 2007 would be the “warmest year on record”.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070104-warmest-year.html

The global warming alarmists (for lack of a better term) have argued that there is a direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and the Earth’s temperature. The more greenhouse gases – the warmer the Earth will become.

Nobody I know of doubts that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere this year than there has been in past years this decade. Therefore, if all other factors are constant, 2007 should have been the warmest year on record. Yet it wasn’t. Why?

You could naturally argue that all other factors AREN’T constant, and that this year’s record temperature drop was due to natural forces. But if you make that argument, then you would have to conclude that this year’s temperature drop would have been EVEN FAR GREATER had it not been for the greenhouse gas warming effect. In other words, we would have had a one-year MEGA-temperature drop that would have far eclipsed anything our records could have contemplated. Then we would need to start asking ourselves why this happened.

Since most expect the amount of greenhouse gases to increase even more overall in 2008, would anyone care to wager what the climate change will be this year? Even if it inches up a bit relative to 2007, the temperature will still be lower than compared to say 2005. So relative to that time we would still have a cooling ‘trend’ even though there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You would need an even larger record-shattering one year jump in atmospheric temps in order to continue the alarmist heating trend. “Trends” are only defined by what (arbitrary) starting point you decide on. If you chose 2005 as the starting point for a trend, we will likely be in an overall cooling trend for the next several years (even if we experience a slight up-tick in warming compared to rather cool year of 2007).

Either way, this one year alone shatters the concept of “More greenhouse gases automaticialy equals more warming” theory – unless you are prepared to argue that 2007 would have experienced a drop that was even far larger than the one we already experienced had it not been for greenhouse gases. That seems to be a rather dubious theory to me.

-DRJ

Aaah, that’s where you’re wrong, DRJ.
In the drought-ravaged future, everyone will have a Ph.D. – from the University of Hard Knocks.

You’ll notice that the AGW crowd has stopped talking about “Global Warming”, now they use the phrase “Climate Change”.

Never accept a fact unless it is verified by your ideology!

Google-Fu: I did a Google search for “Graph of Earth Temperatures”, downloaded thegraph and saved it as a jpeg. Next, I repeated the search but this time for “Graph of Solar Output”, once again downloading and saving the graph as a jpeg. Then it became a simple matter of opening both graphs and comparing the data by timeline. With the exception of one spike in solar activity (which I took to be a rather significant flare that Earth’s temperature did NOT follow), the Earth’s temperature pretty well followed solar activity. That’s when I considered the science settled. Who should I believe? Al Gore or my lying eyes?

They track closely until about 1985, when surface temperatures continue climbing and solar output drops.

- graph
- Reuters story