Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming.

[HAL 9000 96]

Scientists are people just like any other. They don't want to be proven wrong and will protect their positions. So many scientists have their reputations staked on man made GW it will litterally take an ice age to get them to admitt their mistake. The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

Yeah, OK.

Their mistake and your gushing fountain of truth.

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

I didn't realize HAL was peer-reviewing your links.

His personal bias trumps all else. If a scientist has a bias like that and is peer reviewing something that he does not agree with he can kill the study. This is how we have the consensus.

Yes... I guess that's what showing flaws is now called in your book.

Keep telling us how it is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Murdererer!

[scandal 951]

Scientists are people just like any other. TRUE

They don't want to be proven wrong and will protect their positions. TRUE

So many scientists have their reputations staked on man made GW it will litterally take an ice age to get them to admitt their mistake. FALSE - Wild and dramatic over-generalization

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. TRUE, but misleading

HAL is a shining example of this. IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand

Yes, the peer review process, like any human endeavor, is imperfect.

Yes, scientists are human beings (this is pretty much a tautology and devoid of meaningful information)

You are radically throwing out the baby with the bathwater Gary.

Because you "don't like" Global Warming, you are attacking the methodology that has brought recognized experts in the field to the conclusion that it is real, powerful, harmful, and at least partially man made.

That is a very dicey proposition for you to take.

By attacking the very methodology of peer-reviewed science and delegitimizing it, what you (and others like you) are doing is calling into question the very nature of science itself. Do you also attack peer-reviewed science when it brings you cures for human diseases? Or powers space flight? Or creates advances in semiconductor design? It's the very same peer-reviewed process at work in those disciplines. Yes, science is political, competitive, and in some cases appeals to the base human motives of its practicioners - fame, greed, power, prestige. That doesn't mean the process is useless or of no value.

[HAL 9000 96]

Brother Scandal get some rest!!!!!! You need to have your energy reserves ready to go in less than 48 hours!!!!

[GaryC 7]

Scientists are people just like any other. TRUE

They don't want to be proven wrong and will protect their positions. TRUE

So many scientists have their reputations staked on man made GW it will litterally take an ice age to get them to admitt their mistake. FALSE - Wild and dramatic over-generalization

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. TRUE, but misleading

HAL is a shining example of this. IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand

Yes, the peer review process, like any human endeavor, is imperfect.

Yes, scientists are human beings (this is pretty much a tautology and devoid of meaningful information)

You are radically throwing out the baby with the bathwater Gary.

Because you "don't like" Global Warming, you are attacking the methodology that has brought recognized experts in the field to the conclusion that it is real, powerful, harmful, and at least partially man made.

That is a very dicey proposition for you to take.

By attacking the very methodology of peer-reviewed science and delegitimizing it, what you (and others like you) are doing is calling into question the very nature of science itself. Do you also attack peer-reviewed science when it brings you cures for human diseases? Or powers space flight? Or creates advances in semiconductor design? It's the very same peer-reviewed process at work in those disciplines. Yes, science is political, competitive, and in some cases appeals to the base human motives of its practicioners - fame, greed, power, prestige. That doesn't mean the process is useless or of no value.

Global warming is less about science and more about politics. All those other fields you mentioned don't have political powerhouses like AlGore behind them. This is about power and money, not about saving the planet.

[scandal 951]

Scientists are people just like any other. TRUE

They don't want to be proven wrong and will protect their positions. TRUE

So many scientists have their reputations staked on man made GW it will litterally take an ice age to get them to admitt their mistake. FALSE - Wild and dramatic over-generalization

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. TRUE, but misleading

HAL is a shining example of this. IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand

Yes, the peer review process, like any human endeavor, is imperfect.

Yes, scientists are human beings (this is pretty much a tautology and devoid of meaningful information)

You are radically throwing out the baby with the bathwater Gary.

Because you "don't like" Global Warming, you are attacking the methodology that has brought recognized experts in the field to the conclusion that it is real, powerful, harmful, and at least partially man made.

That is a very dicey proposition for you to take.

By attacking the very methodology of peer-reviewed science and delegitimizing it, what you (and others like you) are doing is calling into question the very nature of science itself. Do you also attack peer-reviewed science when it brings you cures for human diseases? Or powers space flight? Or creates advances in semiconductor design? It's the very same peer-reviewed process at work in those disciplines. Yes, science is political, competitive, and in some cases appeals to the base human motives of its practicioners - fame, greed, power, prestige. That doesn't mean the process is useless or of no value.

Global warming is less about science and more about politics. All those other fields you mentioned don't have political powerhouses like AlGore behind them. This is about power and money, not about saving the planet.

The drug lobby doesn't have money and politics riding behind the science of new medicines :blink:

Gary, to quote Michael Corleone for a sec, who's being naive here??

[HAL 9000 96]

No Gary... Global Warming is described scientifically. Which is why politicos misrepresent the facts as do those that wish to not realize fact for fact.

[scandal 951]

Brother Scandal get some rest!!!!!! You need to have your energy reserves ready to go in less than 48 hours!!!!

Awww, this is Wed. I gotz til Friday. What else am I gonna do but blow smoke with you lot?

[HAL 9000 96]

Brother Scandal get some rest!!!!!! You need to have your energy reserves ready to go in less than 48 hours!!!!

Awww, this is Wed. I gotz til Friday. What else am I gonna do but blow smoke with you lot?

ooookay... macho man...

Anyway... I have an early start tomorrow so no more Friendly Truthful B!tchslaps from the Science and Technology Division.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If science has all the answers, why are we still making observations and collecting data?

[GaryC 7]

No Gary... Global Warming is described scientifically. Which is why politicos misrepresent the facts as do those that wish to not realize fact for fact.

You mean like this guy?

[scandal 951]

yeah, that really adds to intelligent debate Gary.

You know, that's exactly the reason I prefer battling wits with Marc at this hour of the night.

His sh!t makes me laugh. Yours just makes me groan.

[GaryC 7]

We can sit here and argue about peer review process or data analysis all night long but it is all trumped by one fact, global warming has ended. So all other points are moot.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

[GaryC 7]

yeah, that really adds to intelligent debate Gary.

You know, that's exactly the reason I prefer battling wits with Marc at this hour of the night.

His sh!t makes me laugh. Yours just makes me groan.

No more than the constant denying of the facts by HAL. No matter what is said he is right and I am wrong. His bias is laughable.

[scandal 951]

yeah, that really adds to intelligent debate Gary.

You know, that's exactly the reason I prefer battling wits with Marc at this hour of the night.

His sh!t makes me laugh. Yours just makes me groan.

No more than the constant denying of the facts by HAL. No matter what is said he is right and I am wrong. His bias is laughable.

You posted an image of Al Gore that was photoshopped to show him breathing fire like Satan himself.

Please explain how that possibly has anything to do with reasoned debate.