There's a meltdown on the ice sheet—and optimism among Greenlanders.
The warming climate that enticed Erik the Red is returning.

From Al in Georgia

"Now how can it be claimed that on the one hand we created the current warming trend and on the other hand admit that there was a time when the climate was much warmer than today. In fact, use that history as a means of suggesting how things might look as we humans warm the planet to temperatures never seen except during the time of Erik the terrible. What a riot!"

This is excelllent coverage.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/03/greenland-ground-zero-for-global-soot-warming/

I assume there is at least a Herman Street in Melville....

Lets see:
-There has been no indication that sea levels rise rates are increasing.
-It's been warmer in the past.
-Proxy data shows the arctic has been ice free several times in the past.
-The sea has risen ~130ft in the last 10kyears.
-Argus buoys show ocean tempatures have been stable.

So why all this AGW BS? It's where the grant money is, follow the $$.

Yes it's grant money.

Lubcheno and many others are demanding billions to fund their hobbies (mascarading as careers) that because of AGW must monitor and measure everything imaginable about the ocean.
Including re-measuring and mapping what is already known.

Their alarmist's pitch s their is no cost too high to save the planet.
So gimmie gimmie gimmie, it's for your own survival.

More brilliant comments misunderstanding the difference between climate and weather.

My favorite has always been "as long as the temperature has been warmer in the past, there's no problem to worry about".

ecohuman: My favorite has always been "as long as the temperature has been warmer in the past, there's no problem to worry about".
That’s pretty much correct.

Especially when you add in a few facts:
1. The last three warming periods (1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998) were at the same rate of warming.
(JK note: The first and second warming periods were at a time when man didn’t emit much CO2. The last one is the one that was co-incident with increases of man’s CO2 emissions. The fact that warming WAS NOT ACCELERATED by increased CO2 is damning evidence against the CO2 postulate.)

2. There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 to present.

3. The main reason “scientists” believe that man’s CO2 is the cause of warming is “the fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing..”

Above three items are from a BBC interview of a top climate scientist, head of England’s Climatic Research Unit (of emails fame) and IPCC lead author at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

4. Man only emits about 3% of the annual CO2 emissions.

5. CO2 causes much less than half of the observed warming.

Note that ½ of 3% is 1.5%, the maximum amount of total warming that might be man caused.
Also be aware that the last major climatic event was the little ice age, so the best explanation is that we are warming after the little ice age.

Do you have any evidence that man is causing warming? (I mean real evidence of man being the cause, not lots of stories about cute polar bears and other perceived cuddly creatures or of melting ice or floods or any other natural phenomena that AL Gore claimed was man caused.)

Thanks
JK

Thanks, Jim--but what the heck does *any* of that information have to do with the linked story of observed melting of glaciers and their expected impact on coastal areas?

ecohuman: but what the heck does *any* of that information have to do with the linked story of observed melting of glaciers and their expected impact on coastal areas?
JK: It shows that the current warming (which probably ended 10 years ago) is almost completely natural. And that includes the events in the linked story. The whole AGW scare is completely bull shat.

Thanks
JK

It shows that the current warming (which probably ended 10 years ago) is almost completely natural. And that includes the events in the linked story.

So? Then what are your thoughts about the impact of the melting glaciers on sea level and coastal areas?

And I'm not talking about what to call the *reason* for the melting glaciers, I'm talking about the documented glacier change that's occurring and being investigated. Do you think the glaciers aren't actually melting?

ecohuman: And I'm not talking about what to call the *reason* for the melting glaciers, I'm talking about the documented glacier change that's occurring and being investigated. Do you think the glaciers aren't actually melting?
JK: My impression is that real, measured, (as opposed to predicted) sea levels are rising at a slower rate than a few decades ago.

Further there is a lot of discussion about antarctic ice increasing about the same as antarctic ice decreasing.

But the whole field is so full of politically inspired lies and fear of speaking out, it is hard to tell where the truth lies, except by looking at original data sources (some of which are also contaminated by politics)

Thanks
JK

My impression is that real, measured, (as opposed to predicted) sea levels are rising at a slower rate than a few decades ago.

Based on what?

Further there is a lot of discussion about antarctic ice increasing about the same as antarctic ice decreasing.

Really? The article's about global changes, not just Antarctica--but name two reputable sources discussing a net *increase* in glacial ice on the planet.

But the whole field is so full of politically inspired lies and fear

The only fear I see in that article is the fear of scientists that the melting glaciers may result in disaster for currently inhabited coastal areas.

If that were a possibility, wouldn't you want to know in advance? Or would you wait to see if (and how much) coastal areas get flooded before acting?

ecohuman: (quoting JK) My impression is that real, measured, (as opposed to predicted) sea levels are rising at a slower rate than a few decades ago.
ecohuman: Based on what?
JK: sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html (All you get in the mainstream media is RealClimate’s propaganda.)

ecohuman: (quoting JK) Further there is a lot of discussion about antarctic ice increasing about the same as antarctic ice decreasing.
ecohuman: Really? The article's about global changes, not just Antarctica--but name two reputable sources discussing a net *increase* in glacial ice on the planet.
JK: see: .sustainableoregon.com/glaciers.html and sustainableoregon.com/nwsnow.html

Why don’t you name a reputable source (ie: peer reviewed) that says net worldwide ice is decreasing. You may be interested in a list of 750 peer reviewed papers that DO NOT support the AGW postulate: populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

ecohuman: (quoting JK) But the whole field is so full of politically inspired lies and fear
ecohuman: The only fear I see in that article is the fear of scientists that the melting glaciers may result in disaster for currently inhabited coastal areas.
JK: That because you are reading stuff from scientific illiterates at most of the major media outlets. Especially avoid any green organization that uses scare stories to conduct fund-raising (Sierra Club, Wilderness society, WWF etc.)

Try some of these instead:
Dr Judith Curry: judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
Dr Hal Lewis: thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Dr Roy Spencer: drroyspencer.com/
Anthony Watts: wattsupwiththat.com/
SustainableOregon.com

ecohuman: If that were a possibility, wouldn't you want to know in advance? Or would you wait to see if (and how much) coastal areas get flooded before acting?
JK: Its also possible we will get hit by a meteor and all die. And no, I don’t worry much about extremely unlikely events without any supporting evidence.
See: Ocean level history: sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html
Earth temperature history: sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html
Source of most warming: sustainableoregon.com/data_adjustments.html
History of alarmism: sustainableoregon.com/page59.html

Thanks
JK

That because you are reading stuff from scientific illiterates at most of the major media outlets.

The scientists quoted and described in that article are "scientific illiterates"? Okay. That helps me understand your point of view better.

And no, I don’t worry much about extremely unlikely events without any supporting evidence.

False. You worry about it a great deal, Jim, and spend a significant amount of your life energy attempting to "debunk" ideas and efforts you don't believe in in any way possible. I can understand that feeling.

But--now I get you, Jim. You're about the past, and the labels used to describe the present. I'm about the future, and the efforts being made to understand it and potentially help our fellow man.

So, while you worry about whether or not

JK: from: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N45/C1.php :

The six scientists determined, in their words, that present-day SMB changes "are not exceptional within the last 140 years." In fact, they found that the SMB decline over the decade 1995-2005 was no different from that of the decade 1923-1933.

Wake, L.M., Huybrechts, P., Box, J.E., Hanna, E., Janssens, I. and Milne, G.A. 2009. Surface mass-balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866. Annals of Glaciology 50: 176-184.

JK: Notice, again, that the recent event is not exceptional compared to history. This happens to every climate claim when we look closely at it - it is not unusual, just widely hyped by scientifically ignorant media that are too lazy to actually dig & think.

Thanks
JK

That whooshing sound you hear is science passing you by, Jim. Meanwhile, you're reading "science" websites run as fronts for corporations. You've posted similarly propagandistic sock puppet sites before.

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

Which is why I can't take you seriously, Jim. You claim to be a critical observer, but really you're just a poorly informed ideologue.

ecohuman: (quoting JK) That because you are reading stuff from scientific illiterates at most of the major media outlets.
ecohuman: The scientists quoted and described in that article are "scientific illiterates"? Okay. That helps me understand your point of view better.
JK: They are spreading un-necessary alarm. There is nothing unusual about the current melt. See http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N45/C1.php & the above quote.

ecohuman: (quoting JK) And no, I don’t worry much about extremely unlikely events without any supporting evidence.
ecohuman: False. You worry about it a great deal, Jim, and spend a significant amount of your life energy attempting to "debunk" ideas and efforts you don't believe in in any way possible. I can understand that feeling.
JK: Wrong. I am defending myself against people trying to use the government to harm us through smart growth, climate change, light rail and forced density.

ecohuman: But--now I get you, Jim. You're about the past, and the labels used to describe the present.
JK: Actually I am about trying to be rational and actually look at data, That is how I know that getting people out of cars and into mass transit is a fraud; global warming is a fraud, smart growth is mostly a fraud; density does not save money, reduce congestion or reduce pollution. You should try actually looking at the data sometime, instead of just repeating what you get from the popular press and greenie finding appeal letters.

ecohuman: I'm about the future, and the efforts being made to understand it and potentially help our fellow man.
JK: Not really, you are about following evey popular fad and delusion that comes along. Many of those that you follow, like global warming, are just schemes to make a few rich even richer (Al Gore, Goldman Sacks etc.)

Why don’t you follow up on some of the links I provided above - they are far more accurate than the stuff you have been reading. Especially study the history of alarmism here: sustainableoregon.com/page59.html
All you are doing is getting fooled by a regularly repeating scare.

Why don’t you tell us what evidence you considered to form your apparent belief that man is causing global warming?

Thanks
JK

Actually I am about trying to be rational and actually look at data

Then why not get your data directly from the corporations that do the most polluting? They run the site you linked to above, Jim. You know it, and you're being fundamentally dishonest about your intentions and your beliefs.

I don't believe in "global warming", Jim. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between climate change and the convenient semantic argument about "global warming" is another reason you're not taken seriously.

smart growth is mostly a fraud; density does not save money, reduce congestion or reduce pollution. You should try actually looking at the data sometime, instead of just repeating what you get from the popular press and greenie finding appeal letters.

I have and do. I also agree with everything you say in that last quote about smart growth, density, congestion, and pollution. I don't "follow" Al Gore or Goldman Sachs, though, whatever that may mean.

Why don’t you follow up on some of the links I provided above - they are far more accurate

No, that link you provided to "co2science" is a fraudulent site, Jim, and I linked to a source that explains why. If you still believe that site is "accurate", then I'll assume you're okay with quietly watching a sock puppet spoon feed you "science".

Ecohuman, you are making a mistake that a lot of people make. Scientest write a report and reporters (with no scientific background but do have a political agenda) write the story that gets printed.

You'll find even Michael Mann has admitted that there hasn't been any "significant" warming over the last decade. As for why glaciers are in Greenland are melting from warmer water, why don't you read up on AMO and PDO, completely normal cycles.

Ecohuman, you are making a mistake that a lot of people make.

Not believing in "global warming" is a mistake? Because I don't.

why don't you read up on AMO and PDO, completely normal cycles.

So, all the scientists still studying the problem are clueless and late to the game? Ah. Got it.

Darrin, here's some homework for you. Define "climate change" and "global warming", then briefly compare and contrast the two. Go ahead--I double-dog dare you.

From Wikipedia:

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

Climate change is a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in the average weather conditions or a change in the distribution of weather events with respect to an average, for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events. Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as global warming or anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

IOW, Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change.

I suspect the comparison you are looking for is Climate vs Weather.

ecohuman: That whooshing sound you hear is science passing you by, Jim. Meanwhile, you're reading "science" websites run as fronts for corporations. You've posted similarly propagandistic sock puppet sites before.

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

Which is why I can't take you seriously, Jim. You claim to be a critical observer, but really you're just a poorly informed ideologue.
JK: And this is a perfect example of why you will always be ignorant. I gave you a quote from a peer reviewed journal and the citation to that quote, then gave credit to where I found this. Instead of learning anything, you just looked up the source that cited the peer reviewed paper and refused to look further. You will never learn anything by burying your head in the sand or until you learn to look at the information, not its source.

BTW, source watch is highly biased . It doesn’t mention Shell oil contributing to the CRU, Phil Jones’ (lead author of the IPCC report) employer. By this standard, you have to now dismiss anything coming out of either the CRU or the IPCC. It also didn’t mention Al Gore’s interest in a Silicon Valley Vulture capital company that “investos” in green enterprises (which require government subsidies to make money.) They also didn’t mention Al’s $100,000 speaking fee or the British court finding a number of lies in this inconvenient truth.

ecohuman: (quoting JK) Why don’t you follow up on some of the links I provided above - they are far more accurate
ecohuman: No, that link you provided to "co2science" is a fraudulent site, Jim, and I linked to a source that explains why. If you still believe that site is "accurate", then I'll assume you're okay with quietly watching a sock puppet spoon feed you "science".
JK: I said links not link. Try these:
Dr Judith Curry: judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
Dr Hal Lewis: thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Dr Roy Spencer: drroyspencer.com/
Anthony Watts: wattsupwiththat.com/
SustainableOregon.com

Thanks
JK

JK, that last site, Sustainable Oregon has at least one reference that is blatantly supported by industry. I did a check on many of them, and read a number of papers this last 2 weeks. Many of the papers were dealing with ways of mitigating the effects, one, from the Baltics, had an interesting description on the twin cooling systems of the planet, and at least the ones I read through, did not make the outright claim that human activity is ruled out. There are also way too many papers that are rather tentative due to the results having insufficient, reliable long term information about past changes to be of much value today as a "proof' of one side or the other. So I discounted all papers over 10 years old and paid close attention to those in the last 5 years, of which there are not many in that list, compared with the list as a whole.

As to sea level rising due to glacier melt off, those glaciers in the sea will not change the level of the oceans because they are already in the water, the volume of which is displaced by the volume of the ice mass. It's the land ice mass which is controlling.

And finally, there is the question of falsifiability, the concept introduced by Karl Popper and which is applied to the testing of scientific theories. He extended it later to prove that scientific determinism is false.

"Open Universe"
-Karl Popper.

In the final analysis, taking Popper's conclusions into the mix, I find that neither side has proved it's contentions, conjectures or theories to the point that I can fell comfortable with business as usual, or becoming an advocate for the climate change model that predicts serious, negative outcomes. It must be noted, however, that many of the world's security forces are taking it seriously in their long term looks.

IOW, it's a crapshoot.

Let's address a few of your specific points, Jim, then I'll retire--because though I know where you get your information, I'm confused why you've spent this much of your life energy yelling instead of evaluating both "sides" of the debate. That last bit is part of your fundamental problem, too--you create a false divide into "alarmists" and "realists". Your evaluation, in other words, begins and ends with ridicule, not science.

First, your "peer-reviewed article" you linked to. For readers with extra time, I suggest reading the entire paper:

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5429/

Then, I'd again strongly suggest that Mr. Karlock try hard to understand the difference between "warming" and "climate change"--because that article is discussing warming effects on the icesheet, not global climate change effects.

Second, your focus on the IPCC as the Source of All Climate Alarmism. The IPCC is one group of scientists, and like all good scientists, the debate, discovery and research is ongoing. However, there's one serious, fundamental, and disturbing difference between the IPCC and the groups I see you quoting: the IPCC doesn't make threats to kill scientists if they don't stop publishing papers. Phil Jones received hundreds of death threats from all over the world. The IPCC readily admits that climate change study is ongoing, and doesn't claim to be the final word on anything. Why is that, Jim?

Third, your cherry picking of skeptic" scientists. Of *course* scientists don't all agree. That's what makes good science. Unlike you, I don't have a problem with different opinions on the topic--but I do have a problem with the vitrioli, hateful, agressive, and often just deceptive nature of the sources you tend to rely on heavily. Judith Curry? She's famous for calling other scientists "as*holes* who believe that climate change is threatening human existence. She's more than upset by arguments--she's called it a "religious war" and has taken to writing blog posts for anybody who will listen. Why is that, Jim? And here's an interesting quote from Curry herself, grudgingly becoming a scientist for a moment in Scientific American in 2010:

"The plausible worst-case scenario could be worse than anything we’re looking at right now."

Fourth, Phil Jones. You're going to believe conspiracies, Jim, so no amount of explaining (and pointing to the facts of the matter) will make one dent in your unwillingness to believe what actually happened. So--go ahead, consider Jones irrelevant. I don't mind.

Fifth, Roy Spencer. His dishonesty is well-documented, but here's a survey of a few of the highlights:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

And, Roy Spencer is a self-professed creationist.

Sixth, Hal Lewis. it's interesting that you should choose him. I'll stop short of posting the easy answer, and let discerning readers have a look here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009%20science%20bypass%20v3%200.pdf

Seventh, the difference between "alarmists" and "skeptics". The IPCC (your bete noire) doesn't have a lobbying arm. It doesn't lobby governments, or hire lobbyists to influence policy. Strangely, "skeptical" groups have spent upwards of several billion dollars in the last decade on lobbying and policy efforts. Most of that money, curiously, came from fossil fuel companies. The information is readily available, Jim. Why would there be such a lopsided effort to lobby governments and build ties with the GOP in America, I wonder? Surely it's another "alarmist" conspiracy.

Lastly, there's one fundamental reason why I no longer take you seriously, Jim: your view of the entire issue is entirely one-sided. You make a pretense to being a "skeptic", but all of your sources, all of your statements, and all of your language point to the opposite--that you in fact believe that humans aren't contributing to climate change, and that it's not a serious problem (you said so above), and you've dedicated an entire website to a lopsided, angry "disproving" of all other views. That's not skepticism--it's an angry ideologue who disregards all that doesn't fit his worldview.

And I should know--I've had my moments in the angry ideologue chair.

ecohuman, Jim posted 3:05PM/ll-14 that global warming "might be man caused" by 1.5%. He never said "humans are not contributing to climate change" as you stated.

Not only time to read, but $31.63 to download the article!

ecohuman, I think you are excessively spitting hairs between climate change and warming. Warming is a subset of climate change, so what's your point?

lw, that 1.5% has to qualified with respect to the study involved. If it's climate change, it is a linear projection. If it is weather changes, it is non-linear, and can be a major component driving that change,as in the "Butterfly Effect" first proposed by Edward Lorenz.

At any rate, as I stated in my last post, I take little comfort in any long term extrapolations. (Define "long term": any weather projection beyond about 7 days.)

ecohuman: Fourth, Phil Jones. You're going to believe conspiracies, Jim, so no amount of explaining (and pointing to the facts of the matter) will make one dent in your unwillingness to believe what actually happened. So--go ahead, consider Jones irrelevant. I don't mind.
JK: You are so un-informed. Haven’t you even looked at any of his emails from the CRU? Read these an try to defend his actions:

First highlights, then the actual emails:
* Jones says the world quit warming.
* He threatens to delete files rather than fulfill a FOIA (a crime)
* He asks others to delete emails subject to a FOIA
* He asks others to change the date on an official document. (fraud)
* He admits trying to keep a paper out of the IPCC report (fraud)
* He admits tampering with the peer review process. (fraud)
* Finally he talks about hiding data that does not support his claim in a paper. (scientific misconduct)

Phil Jones - head of the Climatic Research Unit
Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4)

Jul 5 2005: The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant. (1120593115.txt)
-------Note: in 2009, it is now 11 years of cooling.-------

2/2/2005: The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. (1107454306.txt)
-------------------

Thu May 29, 2008, Subject: IPCC & FOI: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. (1212073451.txt)
-------------- Note: Destroying information subject to a FOI request is a crime. --------------

September 12, 2007: Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. (1189722851.txt)

------------------- Note changing dates on a document is Fraud --------------

Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (1089318616.txt)
-------------------

16 Nov 1999: I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. ( 942777075.txt)
------------------- Note: this is an extremely important admission: the “decline” he
-------------------is hiding is the temperature decline since 1961, in the tree ring data,
-------------------while the actual temperature rose. The existence of this decline suggests
-------------------that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any period, since it deviates
-------------------from measured temperatures in one period (after 1961.) This
-------------------is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.
--------------------------------

11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)
-------------------

Dec 3, 2008: When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. (1228330629.txt)
-------------------

Dec 3, 2008: About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. (1228330629.txt)

Nov 24, 2009 Guardian: We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
(guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea)
------------------- Note: he emails that he has deleted loads of emails and a year later
-------------------tells the newspaper he didn’t.

You can see more highlights of the CRU emails at http://www.sustainableoregon.com/selectedemails.html

You are listening to criminals, believing everything they say and ignoring those who are telling you the truth because some web site says they don’t have the politically correct funding or religious belief.

Thanks
JK

ecohuman: Then, I'd again strongly suggest that Mr. Karlock try hard to understand the difference between "warming" and "climate change"--because that article is discussing warming effects on the icesheet, not global climate change effects.
JK: Please pay attention - this thread is about rapid melting of Greenland. The referenced article debunks that claim. Here it is from the actual paper you linked to (instead of the alleged oil company contaminated site that originally referenced it.)

... conclude that the present-day changes are not exceptional within the last 140 years. Peripheral thinning has dominated the SMB response during the past decade, as in 1923–33, but we also show that thinning was not restricted to the margins during this earlier period.

In words you can understand: There is nothing unusual about the melting. The NYT article is complete alarmist crap from Woods hole.

ecohuman: Second, your focus on the IPCC as the Source of All Climate Alarmism. The IPCC is one group of scientists, and like all good scientists, the debate, discovery and research is ongoing.
JK: You are completely wrong again. The IPCC was set up to look into man’s contribution to global warming. It is an UN agency with heavy input from the CRU, of email fame. Emails where several scientists bragged of hiding inconvenient data, publishing fraudulent papers, preventing the publishing of opposing papers and criminal refusal to comply with FOI requests. Why would you believe anything coming from that group, which BTW are the center of the world’s alarmists. And many of their claimed peer-reviewed sources are actually green propaganda. See: sustainableoregon.com/ipcc_peerreview.html

Thanks
JK

Still not taking you seriously, Jim, but at least you're entertaining. Oh, and about the long-debunked "climate gate":

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

You know the Union of Concerned Scientists, right? Judith Curry's a member. You like her, remember?

And of course, discerning readers will notice your careful avoidance of the rest of my post about your other "sources".

Jack - Can Ecohuman and Jim Karlock have their own private site to pound on each other - this is getting as bad as a TSA body scanner/pat down.

Hey Echohuman,
Still waiting for evidence that man is causing warming.

BTW, what do you think of Phil Jones (probably the single most influential warmist.) now?

Thanks
JK

BTW, what do you think of Phil Jones (probably the single most influential warmist.) now?

About the same that you do about Roy Spencer, the self-progessed Creationist and long ago debunked "scientist".

Jack - Can Ecohuman and Jim Karlock have their own private site to pound on each other - this is getting as bad as a TSA body scanner/pat down.

There's no way I'm "touching anybody's junk".
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/tsa-encounter-dont-touch-my-junk/19716789

But you raise a good point--I've commented in this post more than enough.

Here is what I found on your ucs link - a link to fact check.org which contains this misleading claim:

E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

They do admit that it is hiding a problem with recent tree ring data, and they give the false impression that knowledgeable people thought otherwise. So much for factcheck’s competency.

The smoking gun that “factcheck” is covering up is that, that little “problem” with tree ring data strikes at the heart of a major part the whole AGW case:

To show that tree rings are accurate measures of temperature, we compare them with actual thermometer data and conclude that they do work. Based on that we assume they behaved the same in earlier times and deduce temperature from them. The comparison period is about from around 1900 to present. But recently the tree rings are not reflecting thermometer data. This fact had to be hidden, because if, in the last 30 (or so) years, they are not accurate, one has to ask if there were other times when they also didn’t match thermometer data (if thermometers had existed back then.) Once you ask that question, you have to THROW OUT ALL TREE RING DATA as unreliable.

And tree ring data is at the heart of claims that the current period is unusually warm. Interestingly most other alleged temperature proxies DO NOT show recent warming as unusual.

Once you show that the current temperature is not unusual, you have to say - do we really have a problem. Al Gore’s answer is HECK YES, we have a problem because every time that CO2 goes up so does the temperature. This is the second BIG LIE in the warmers’ case: the ice cores that Gore showed actually show that FIRST the temperature goes up, then, on average 800 years LATER, the temperature goes up. In other words, CO2 is not shown to cause temperature increase. (The warmers have a convoluted argument to sluff of this problem in their case, but it is also unproven.)

Those two things are the foundation of claims of warming and both are fatally flawed.

Warmers simply have no case.

Thanks
JK

I guess we will find out some years hence. My prediction is neither will be the final outcome. We just can't know for sure.

...and, of course, if you show that the accountability for predictions is flawed for the system, you can not deny it decisively either.

You forgot to mention the other problem is they cherry picked tree ring data and only used a couple that matched their theory. Actually the tree ring data might not be bad after all.

People have been downloading the raw surface station data and taking a look at it. The raw data shows anything from a mild decline, no change or mild increase. After the raw data gets massaged it always goes up at a frightening pace. Take a look over at wattsupwiththat to see these reports from various stations.

If you can get a copy of Popper's Open Universe, and wade through it, you will see how data, like tree rings, fall woefully short of any possibility to be substantive in setting up predictions based on scientific determinism, which is, after all, what we would like to see.

But then, Popper falsified scientific determinism, based on data accountability to which appropriate scientific principles are applied to determine the outcome.

Simplified, accountability is the accumulation of sufficient data, of the required accuracy to validate the outcome at the accuracy levels required. IOW you know everything there is to know at the correct accuracy levels before you run the program. As Lorenz showed, the accuracy for even a simple calculation of weather phenomena, for which he had a mathematical model, required the data to be accurate to many more decimal places, and even then all the increased accuracy would have provided was a delay in the projected outcome curve to deviate from the expected curve.