And you read an article published by a right-wing website and you believe it's the Gospel.
How lame is that? Can't you think for yourself or what?

Read about these so-called climate experts here:

An embarrassment to Australian science
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php

How many of the quoted "climate experts" dare to publish their contratian views in peer-reviewed journals?
0. Show me one paper that any of these so-called skeptics wrote about climate change and had become accepted science?
But what happens when you take a look at the peer-reviewed papers?

This:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

And what happens if you ask climate scientists who are not getting money from the fossil-fuel industry?

This:

Al Gore?s movie
by Eric Steig

"How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate."

Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

In other words those few guys who are quoted in this dishonest article are losers and they just can't take it.

Everything that Gore says about anthroponegic climate change in the movie can be backed up by peer-reviewed research.

Like his claim that IF the Greenland ice sheet melted or broke and slipped into the sea sea levels would rise by 20 feet.

Polar melting may raise sea level sooner than expected

The red and pink areas in this image of the coasts of the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island indicate the areas that would be submerged if the sea level rose about 20 feet (six meters). Courtesy of Jeremy Weiss and Jonathan Overpeck, The University of Arizona.

If the current warming trends continue, by 2100 the Earth will likely be at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was nearly 130,000 years ago. At that time, significant portions of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, resulting in a sea level about 20 feet (six meters) higher than present day.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoa-pmm031506.php

Here's the paper:

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2

Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.

Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747 - 1750
DOI: 10.1126/science.1115159

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1747?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=sea+level&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

But these industry funded shills are too coward to "refute" anthroponegic climate change in peer-reviewed journals.
Yes despite the lie in the article Bob Carter is one of those shills:
The Lavoisier Group distributes the work of geologist Bob Carter, Ian Castles, William Kininmonth, Ian Plimer and a few other Australian sceptics. http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=287

Hugh Morgan convenes the Lavoisier Group ? described by critics as ?Australia?s funniest corporate front group?. Set up to challenge what it calls ?environmental extremists?, the group declares: ?With the Kyoto Protocol we face the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese Fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942.? It gets better. Morgan views discussion papers from the Australian Government?s Greenhouse Office as Nazi propaganda, labelling them ? Mein Kampf declarations?. Like several others in the Lavoisier Group, Morgan is connected with the mining transnational WMC ? he only resigned as its Chief Executive in January. In recent years WMC?s greenhouse-gas emissions are reported to have risen sharply, from 1.62 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 1994-95 to 2.99 million tonnes in 2001.
http://www.newint.org/issue357/toxic.htm

Bob Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134

Tech Central Station is primarily funded by sponsors that include AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, and PhRMA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_Central_Station

This tells it all about the scientific intergrity -- or lack thereof -- of these nuts:

Someone like Bill Gray seems to be a fully credentialed authority figure. But when you press him on his theory of how thermohaline circulation has caused recent warming of the planet and will soon cause cooling, he concedes that he hasn't published the idea in any peer-reviewed journal. He's working on it, he says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Huh? Gray has denied anthroponegic climate change for years but somehow he couldn't find a way top write a paper about it. (Not to mention that his 2005 hurricane season prediction was the mother of all understatements. Probably he forgot to calculate global warming into the picture.)


Here's what you should do. Call the National Academy of Science and ask them: is anthropogenic climate change happening because of man-made GHG emission? And ask them whether it's a good thing.
You will not like the answer.

Highlights of National Academies Reports:
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change

A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE
indicates that the Earth?s atmosphere is warming. Records show that surface temperatures have risen
about 1.4oF (0.7oC) since the early twentieth century, and that about 0.9oF (0.5oC) of this increase has occurred since 1978. Observed changes in oceans, ecosystems, and ice cover are consistent with this warming trend.
The fact is that Earth?s climate is always changing. A key question is how much of the observed warming is due to human activities and how much is due to natural variability in the climate.
In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth?s warming in recent decades has been caused
primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution,
mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation.
Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least 400,000 years and continue to rise.

Global warming could bring good news for some parts of the world, such as longer growing
seasons and milder winters. Unfortunately, it could bring bad news for a much higher percentage of the world?s people. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will likely experience increased flooding due to sea-level rise and more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have increased almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are rapidly changing.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

If you are too lazy to read scientific papers watch this video where Peter Cox, a truly leading climate expert at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in the UK, explains why the speed and scale of warming over the last 120 years cannot be explained by natural variations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD1dnP_k8Yc&search=DAvid%20Attenborough

And you look really dumb when even Bush's own environmental advisor agrees with Gore:

Bush aide touts administration's policies, plugs Gore film

Connaughton also surprised some by praising Gore?s new film, ?An Inconvenient Truth,? as well as the recent Advertising Council campaign sponsored by Environmental Defense and the Robertson Foundation. In both cases, Connaughton said the messages presented on both campaigns? Web sites mirror the Bush administration?s themes of better consumer practices and development of new technologies.

?I encourage you to go to them,? Connaughton said. ?They?re giving the same advice I?ve been giving for years.?

http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2006/05/22/archive/1/?terms=Connaughton

By the way who are those "hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts"? Where are the names and their papers? Could you show me the full list?

These idiots know they are in the minority and they have the arrogance to call themselves "leading climate scientists" and
ridicule the thousands of climate scientists who disagree with their views. The entire IPCC is wrong but Bob Carter -- who is not even a climatologist but a geologist -- is right? You bet.
And they call Gore an "embarrassment to US science" when they choose to argue in right-wing media outlets instead of peer-reviewed journals?

Only a fool takes these jerks seriously. They will deny anthroponegic climate change until the hell freezes over no matter what the facts are.

BTW
The High Park Group public relations consultant (Tom Harris) who has recently launched a Canadian campaign questioning the science behind climate change was implicated earlier as one of the architects of a similar strategy for the tobacco industry in the US.

http://www.desmogblog.com/news-alert-tobacco-strategist-now-meddling-in-climate-change-debate

Of course we all know that he was right back then, too. Tobacco does not cause cancer. Yep.

Prove to me 2 things and maybe I'll believe some of what you said here:

1) What is happening today NEVER happened before humans came around...

2) What is happening today would positively NOT be occurring today if humans were not here...

You say these scientists are not paid by fossil fuel agencies? Then who are they paid by??? I guess I should realize that only scientists paid by "fossil fuel" organizations are capable of being truly dishonest. Of course this would be contrary to another study that stated in most cases scientific organizations seem to come to the conclusion that the person or people who are paying them want them to. Perhaps this study was funded by the fossil fuel industry as well.

Also, since you are asking for lists, then I guess it would be appropriate for me to do the same. Give me a list of scientists who have proven what's caused climate change, and include who they are funded by along with their names... If you require specifics then I do to...

And I really don't like "excepted science" because of it's tendency to regularly label things that don't seem to fit into their theory as an "anomaly". "Well, this doesn't fit the theory so it must be some weird anomaly, so we can go ahead & simply ignore it because it isn't the norm." At the same time they also have a tendency to leave out context, which may indicate their finding is not abnormal or is not proof of anything.

Also, a lot of what you post here is indicative of most arguments I see on the environment. You posted a ton of what is happening, yet very little of your argument seems to focus on the cause. I don't question things that are happening, in an earlier post I even stated what is happening could in fact be very bad, but I do question the argument of why.

Most off I really hate the fact that because science gets many things right it all of a sudden becomes okay for science to say anything it damn well pleases and it's wrong to question it even if all you are trying to do is point out things that don't seem to be consistent. But hey, since science has proved other thing, they must be right with everything that still hasn't been completely proven, And of course this is EXACTLY you're done here with your little "smoking" reference at the bottom. Smoking has been proven to cause cancer so all of a sudden science is right about EVERYTHING ELSE regardless of anything else. BTW: Thanks for proving that part of my disdain before I ever expressed it.

Oh, and I guess the fact that Al Gore himself directly admitted to purposely overstating the evidence doesn't mean anything either, because I guess in science overstating the evidence is the norm, since the science in this film is "very good"...
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/3055-Rationalizing-Wrong-Doing-Al-Gore-as-a-Case-Study.html