Bob,

The only assault on science was the scandalous and surreptitious actions by the Hadley CRU 'scientists' in:
1) admitting there is NO warming and it is a 'travesty' they can't explain it";
2) destroying files and e-mails in response to FOI requests by other scientists;
3) manipulating data to 'hide the decline' in temperatures; and
4) the perversion of the peer-review process by blocking from publication papers of scientists who disagree!

Where is your outrage over THAT?

Thank you for your well informed, well reasoned rationale!

Thank you for your timely piece. More of us have to stand up to the pseudoscientists and ill informed skeptics of the world. Otherwise we will allow these "flat earth" types dictate the agenda.

Nice article, Bob. It's good to see a reasonable response to all the online dross being generated by the pro-climate-change lobby and other assorted nutters (I hesitate to call them skeptics since I haven't seen a lot of skeptical reasoning going on...). Lots of links to valuable references as well. Keep up the good work!

"Now that same scientific tool is seeing unprecedented environmental changes on a global scale. The scientists are waving a red flag. They are also pointing to sensible solutions to the problem."

Sensible solutions like shutting down the clean industry here and moving production to the much more polluting factories in China?
How will that reduce pollution?

Thank you for speaking out. The global-warming-deniers have been gaining ground, thanks to apparent emails from scientists fudging statistics, right-wing radio talking heads, and other questionable sources. Warnings have been there since at least the 70s by Carl Sagan, Suzuki and others, and mainly the evidence before our very eyes. I can't believe the garbage that's being posted by these advocates of continuing to misuse our planet as we always have. Worship of the dollar reigns in the industrial and corporate world, no matter what the cost to the rest of the world.

Thank you Mr. McDonald for saying what must be said. We are at a precipice and can trust only in reason to lead us now.

Gravity is only a "theory". Might I humbly suggest that those who are still in denial go test that "theory" from a great height.

Does the CBC's own Rex Murphy know about the Canada 500 along with the two scientifically valid sites offering to debunk the disbelievers' "proof" ?
Maybe Bob could meet Rex on the National as part of the CBC's nightly coverage of this summit ?

It's great to see you calling it like you see it, and responding to the absurd demands of your critics head on. There is absolutely no call for "balance" to have some disingenuous hack present the sophist case for doubt, delay and denial.

The science is unequivocal, and the the denials are incoherent and absurd. No better than creationists or alchemists for that matter.

Harper has made it clear that he is going to pursue his party's usual practice of adopting U.S. policy as their own. We can only hope that Obama pursues a very aggressive strategy against global warming, but he has been a disappointment on every other issue since taking office so we are probably best to follow James Lovelock's advice and prepare the 'lifeboats'. As for listening to scientists, the only ones with a real voice are political scientists advising Harper how to gain more power.

I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that we have different criteria for politics and for science. In politics, democracy is the rule. Everyone has a vote, no matter how much or how little he knows about the issues. In science, truth is discovered by an exhaustive process of observation and inference, including extensive discussion and criticism in bodies such as the Royal Society. Only people who are very familar in the evidence are entitled to say what is true and what is not. The opinions of other people, usually the vast majority of the population, do not count.

For example, biologists know as a definitely established fact that evolution is real. The evidence for it is overwhelming. However, many non-scientists are misled into thinking that there is room for doubt about this. Regardless of their numbers, they are wrong.

Similarly, scientists are convinced about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. However, propaganda from oil companies and other sources has led to a popular belief to the contrary.

When science and politics overlap, the different criteria they use can produce serious conflicts. If scientists know that urgent action is needed to combat climate change, but a large part of the population thinks otherwise, what should be done? Democracy may not be good for the future of the world.

We may be fortunate that some influential countries, such as China, are less concerned about democracy than we are.

Bob, it is very clear you are a lemming and are fully on the side of the global warming alarmists. If the ClimateGate emails and computer models have not shaken your faith in this religion, then you are a true believer at Al Gore's alter.

If you have an open mind and are a true scientist, like I am, you will go to the site below and spend a lot of time getting yourself up to speed on the scientific evidence against man made global warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Clearly, many critics of climate change science fail to understand that many lines of evidence converge on the conclusion that the climate is getting warmer than it should and threatens the astonishingly complex web of connectedness among the animate and inanimate world. This means US!

However, here in Calgary I'm often presented with some nugget of contrary information (e.g. alleging that some scientists in Britain "fudged the data") whereby someone smugly asserts that this is proof that all lines of evidence supporting climate change are wrong.

If the critics are credible scientists, they must explain what this discrepant information means in the context of the totality of climate evidence, preferably through peer reviewed publications and presentations at major scientific conferences.

Unfortunately, those lacking a sound science education cannot appreciate that an issue as complex as future weather will never be forced into a dichotomous box of "right vs wrong." As Bertrand Russell noted, "the problem with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Sound scientific methodology and peer review are the best ways we have against fooling ourselves into thinking that nature actually listens to our spin doctoring. Sorry Mr. Harper and you oil execs, nature cannot be fooled by your spin.

Very good article; thank you for the links.
The big problem is that the scientists and other credible commentators are being pushed aside by the media in favour of the not-so-credible such as the groups who in the past month or so have used Parliament as a PR prop. Such dishonest activity tends to backfire amongst mainstream Canadians who have since learned to correlate dishonesty with climate change activists. Hence mainstream Canadians are more likely to believe the canard that climate scientists are 'cooking their data' - after all this what they see 'their spokesmen', the activists, doing on TV.

You can't expect reason from the general public on climate change, they do not have the time to sift through the arguments and most people assume they have universal access to the truth.

The enlightenments greatest fallacy is the lies about reasoning they spread because of their scientific ignorance.

See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

I like to do my own science. I am now going to go and look at the thermometer outside the kitchen window. -2 C Celsius. BTW Lord Jailbird not Centigrade as he wrote in the Canada Post which is a good example of straying into unkbown unexplored territory.
Makes the rest of his opinions on any scientific matter as suspect as that of the liars at East Anglia. Lying might be OK in politics journalism business and cults but it is intolerable in scholarship or science.
The temperature at the Sault airport on my TV Weatherchannel is -5. Five minutes ago it was -6. You see I am being what any scientist must be scropulously honest and impartial. It would benefit and support my argument to have the greatest possible temperature differential but unfortunately it decreased from 4 to a mere three degrees Celsius, Lord BLack. I am now going to check the kitchen window again.
It is now more like minus one and three quarters.
Take the mean and you get that the temperature at 11:35 in Sault Ste Marie downtown is about - 2 and it is about - 5 at the Sault Ste Marie Airport. Celsius of course.
Then you go and do this 365 days of the year and in every community in Canada and as since the official recorded T of every city is the airport T and you will find 1 2 3 4 5 6 degrees Celsius differential in every city all year in every season compared to downtown then you might make the reasonable infernce that airports are colder than cities. Further that cities are warmer because of human activity houses cars vehicles internal combustion engines ovens stoves heaters fireplaces furnaces. Thousands of these produce more heat than an airport terminal. tower or the odd jet engine.
Of course the heat retaining capacity or latent heat of downtown objects including gardens is greater than that of tarmac. Hence cities are warmer. And they are warmer beacause of more humans doing more human things not because of the Sun or cosmic radiation.
I dont know that humans cause global warming but they sure as hell cause urban warming. Add a million cities and...
The conclusion is inescapable.
You just did some science with me. Real science without lies distortions and prevarication. Go ahead and check your outdoor thermometer and the official one for your locality. Prove or disprove my hypothesis.

It would be a logical fallacy to use (1) An Appeal to authority (e.g. Royal Society, Canadian 500) (2) A false equivalence (e.g. Newtons law= Climate change theory) or (3)
Ad ignorantiam (e.g. Climate change is true because we don't know its false)
as a rational basis for decision making in the body politic.

Climate change is empirical theory based on observation. So far, the AGW climate models have failed to predict the climate of the past 8 years without manipulation of data sets and computer code (a logical fallacy called "Moving the Goal Post").

If you wait long enough the climate may continue to cool or it may continue to warm. It will take decades to see what happens.

The AGW theory of climate change is not falsifiable like the Darwin's theory of evolution or Newton's theory of motion and gravitation. Darwin and Newtons theories are predictive and can be tested in the laboratory and the mathematical models are well known and have been tested over hundreds of years with greater levels of accuracy and refinement from their original classical formulation.

Your kidding yourself if you think scientists can model planetary climate over decades. They can't even model the weather several years into the future - it is mathematically impossible due to perturbation problem. This can't even be resolved using Monte Carlo simulations. The IPCC models are projections and estimates - this means it is an opinion - not a fact.

Society would be stupid to make trillion dollar decisions on such a flimsy basis.

The more logical course is to deal with the more serious and tangible problems like pollution, habitat lost and over-fishing.

If you accept the AGW theory, the Canadian contribution to the solution would have no significant effect on the outcome of global warming. The "historical responsibility" is a social not a rational scientific imperative.

Sorry Bob, you are mistaken. I am a senior earth science academic (a one time firm believer in AGW), that became increasingly skeptical over the past ~5 years, even more so in the past year, mainly because DATA was not bearing out what the (simplistic) models had predicted (the Prairies for example are now cooling, within a huge range of variance, over the past decade - download the data from the weather office and see for yourself). The climate models do not propagate errors in the many hundreds of underlying assumptions. Its not as simple as "just CO2" - climate is far more complex than a single variable driver. Water cycle impacts, for example, have still been completely overlooked. Natural variability, sunspots, etc etc, ignored. And now Climategate - I actually took time out to read the emails and model code manipulation and am more disturbed than ever - this is a very serious problem and a huge scientific credibility mess!

I agree with Rex Murphy - we need a reset button on this topic and a far more open way to deal with the complexities of the science and data interpretation. Lets get it out of the political (and media) arena and out of the hands of a few elite academic "stars" - the earth is not in imminent threat of conflagration.

Furthermore I feel your program could most certainly do with a broader range of scientific opinion and journalistic skepticism (akin to White Coat, Black Art). There are MANY eminent scientists that can contribute to serious alternate interpretation and discussion. Credible learned skeptics are not cro-magnons!

Finally, for scientific preciseness in Q&Q, I would ask that in your program you please stop referring to this topic as "Climate Change". The earth is a dynamic non-steady state system and we would all be shocked if it did NOT change as it has over all of geologic history. Do you seriously imply our goal be that climate should be globally static forevermore as it was in 1990? You really mean human caused CO2 driven global warming - now there is a hypothesis we can test with data (and time), and so far in my view of the scientific facts its not looking very good as time goes on.

While I have enjoyed your program for many years, more and more I find myself turning the radio off when the subject of climate comes on this program.

Climategate shows the real scientists don't beleive the science. Since the earth is not warming all the doomsday senarios around it are a joke. Now global warming is climate change and now its climate pollution. Climategate shows most of the scientists embrassing these origanal reports were political scientists. I was sucked right in to this phoney business like so many others.

Dear Bob,

You state:
"We are often criticized on our radio program for not including people on the other side of the climate “debate" to provide balance. If there were good, peer-reviewed scientific publications that provided solid evidence to counter the climate science, we would run it. But such a body of evidence does not exist."

Actually Bob, while it is clear that the planet is indeed heating up, it is not entirely clear what percentage of this is due to mans influence. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the planet goes through heating and cooling cycles every millennium or so.
Co2 levels determined from ice cores cycle from low to high on a regular basis. This has been reported over and over.
Fossilized trees have clearly demonstrated natural warming and cooling cycles.
The idea of Chloroflourocarbons as being the cause of the ozone hole over the Antartic has been debunked. It is not even clear how old this hole is.
Bob, I realize that you are not a part of the scientific community and cannot critically read scientific journals yourself, but there is a debate, a real one, concerning the exact cause of global warming.
Unfortunately, this would not please the CBC censors. It is also unfortunate that there is so much money at stake and it is such a politically charged topic, that there will never be many open debates on the subject.
Surprisingly one of the premier historical climate scientist on the planet was on KPBS 2 two weeks ago talking about his climate work based on fossilized trees (work published in Science). He stated that is is VERY difficult to discern what impact man is having on global warming. He calculates that warming is faster than it normally would be, but even in the absence of humans, the earth would still be in a warming cycle. This scientist would not be welcome on your program, would he Bob?
CBC was one of the only major media outlets in North America not giving proper attention to these charlatans in England who falsified global temperature data.
You are filtering your guests and filtering your conclusions.

We may yet look back and regret that we did not accord Stephane Dion the respect he deserved. Politicians with 4 year horizons will never be able to grasp the nettle that is climate change - and the longer we wait, the worse the pain will be. It is difficult for the lay person to understand the science, it is easy to understand the potential pain of the response (curb your energy usage; buy friendly, but expenive, appliances; pay a lot more for items that contribute more GHG's; above all, pay more). That the pain is exagerated for gain (propoganda is powerful) is also important. And, of course, in the event of final proof we can always blame yesterday's governments for all our ills. I sometimes despair of the human race - we are incredibly small minded and self-centred. Couple that with delusions of grandeur and you have a toxic brew. By the time we come to our senses and take a global view it will be so late that the only option we may (if we are lucky) have is to cooperate in developing methods to escape the hell we have created. Still, we will always have those who believe it is god's will anyway.

Thank you Bob for raising this issue. I also find it frustrating that some people are rejecting the claim that the earth is getting warmer and carbon emmissions are partly to blame for them.

There are a lot of areas of society that we can debate. When it comes to sceince, this area is clearer than other topics.

In a lot of cases the climate change deniers have vested interests in the oil industry so a cap on carbon emissions would not be profitable for them.

I enjoy your show.

Bob,

I understand it's upsetting when you find out people you respect were not only wrong but dishonest and unprofessional. However, please don't ignore the East Anglia CODE leak. The email messages only provide context; the code/algorithims used to produce the IPCC and other well-known temperature survey graphs is the real story.

It was deliberately designed to "hide the decline" and pretending otherwise by dismissing the CRU's blatant misrepresentation of data is blindly disingenuous and does more to harm the climate change movement than anything else.

Admit the deliberate obfuscation, or at least the perception of impropriety, and pledge to review data come to an honest conclusion and move on. Plugging your ears, covering your eyes and waggling your tongue at legitimate criticism makes you look more a fool than those implicated in Climategate.

Andrew Weaver is a Nobel Laureate for Peace not in science, the same as Al Gore and Barrack Obama. Be clear and do not presume that awards apply to other areas and awards granting groups don't make mistakes.

Mr. MacDonald-- You too have been very one-sided. There is not 350 years of solid
scientific evidence of global temperatures.
Your science is guessing & wants to spend 45 Trillon a year (to re-order society to science's liking?} on a theory that says doom will be 100 years away & we should decimate the economy today to (possibly) save us. Sir,
your movement is religious not science.
C02 as toxin..plant food.. Ever heard of the ice age, medieval warming period. Climate is complex & to a large degree local in nature.

David

Thank you , Bob, for this clear, concise, and powerful statement on the state of the science. The links to rebuttals of the deniers are very useful. I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the current muddying of the waters by the so-called "e-mail scandal" coming out of Britain.

I wonder, have you had a chance to read the comments on any single climate change story on CBC?

It seems that the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the popular consensus is growing daily with each headed in opposite directions.

Thanks for writing sensibly on the subject, your task is an important one.

I'd love to see you discuss ocean acidification and the looming water shortages more, as both phenomena can't be seen on the personal level yet, but the science on these topics is very informing - exactly like global warming. But, the difference is that on these topics there are no deniers as far as I know!

The fact that the Conservatives are not listening to scientists should be no surprise. Many Conservatives will believe events literally described in the Bible before considering scientific evidence. Also, the Conservatives, more than any other group, represent the interests of the rich and powerful. Greed supersedes common sense. If we get Harper et al as a majority government, something much like the Flat Earth Society will be running this country. Good article, Bob!

Thank God for Harper
At least someone is keeping an open mind to consider the data manipulations that have led to the alarmist scam.

200 years ago the "scientific consensus" was that life could spontaneously generate from a pile of garbage. Was it an "attack on science" to disagree with this conclusion? If people like Bob McDonald and the AGW orthodoxy dominated the Royal Society back then, science would still be where it was at this point. You and others stifling debate don't know what science is, and you are hardly its champion.

It makes it very difficult for the average citizen to make an informed opinion, with scientist agreeing or diasgreeing with eachother. Politicians are reluctant to act, because they fear economic hardship. Businesses do not want to spend money and time to look for a better way. I'm totally confused.
I would like to see the electric cars take off. here again we have various opinions. So how is a consumer of transportation suppose to make a decision.
PS For people posting comments about how bad fossil fuels are, that we should stop using them. This will never happen. Mr. McDonald will attest to this.
Fossil fuels are like glucose energy which our body uses. Our body can get energy from fats, protein and carbohydrates. But it prefers glucose because it's easier to use. In fact our body is designed to turn other energy sources to glucose. Fossil will be used as long as we have a supply. Ethanol is a form of fossil fuel. It maybe man made but it uses energy that is stored in plant matter.

Science as conducted within the academic community was, up until a few weeks ago, percieved by many to be the gold standard for academic integrity and credibility. However, after the leak of these emails the community defended the people and the science involved by attacking the motivation behind the leak, rather than condemning the content of what was leaked as a serious breach of academic honesty and as bad science. In the eyes of many, this has thrown all of academia and the entire scientific community into disrepute. Not because of some bad apples (which can happen in any field of endeavor), but because when found out the community did not reject the bad apples.

You're obviously in the David Suzuki 'if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-a-war-criminal' mindset, ignoring or denigrating any fact or opinion that runs contrary to your left-of-centre decisions on what's best for Canada. Have average global temperatures not been COOLING in recent years? Would stealing TRILLIONS of dollars from Canadian consumers and businesses into the infinite future (i.e., a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade boondoggle) meaningfully fight CO2 increases when Red China is inaugurating a new COAL-FIRED electrical-generation plant EACH WEEK? How about the fact that roughly thirty percent of world CO2 emissions come from cattle FARTING (I kid you not...'bovine flatulence')...so should we ban livestock farming as well? The REAL agenda here is that many left-wingnuts and luddite enviro-radicals want to DESTROY CAPITALISM and impose bigger, more intrusive government on the population (not just in Canada) than has EVER been seen before in a democracy. Their agenda extends FAR beyond 'climate change', and is disgusting and scarey as hell.

Hi Bob,

I'm very surprised by your apparent indifference to the CRU emails. As someone who obviously respects and admires the objectivity of the scientific method, I would have thought you might have spent more time addressing the breaches in standard scientific practices. The emails reveal a politicized approach to the whole issue of climate change. Manipulating or deleting data, marginalizing opponents, and the corruption of the sacrosanct peer-review process -- is this science?

While I "believe" (NB!) that AGW exists, I was shocked by what these emails contained. My trust in climate scientists has been broken. The last thing we need is to plunge ahead with expensive public policy initiatives. Instead, let's find a way to re-do the science in a fully transparent way. Honestly, Bob, do you really expect anything Obama proposes to pass the Senate now, in light of the email revelations? There's no way! Science needs to build trust again so we can move forward together.

There is no way I would support any carbon reduction system at this point. I suspect I'm not alone.

The arrogance of scientists is on show for all to see. It's a sad spectacle.

I just read the pdf from the Royal Society. That is supposed to convince me?
The whole thing is a big money grab by someone, and it's going to come out of our pockets.
Time to change the channel and get on with our lives

Bob, citing the Proceedings of the Royal Society as definitve proof of Global Warming is not such a great idea as this society has backed many theories in the past that have turned out to be wrong. One case in point, it held that God created all creatures and that said creatures did not evolve. We all know now that this is not true, but it was considered a scientific fact until Darwin's Theory of Evolution was finally accepted.

Now I believe that Global Warming is happening and that humans are the chief reason behind the upswing in temperatures over the last century, but citing the Royal Society does not make the case.

Before blamimg Prime Minister Harper for everything, like you usually do, I would take a step back and ask why the Liberals, who signed Kyoto, did not take one step to decrease carbon emissions in the years that they were in power. It is not as simple as saying, "it's the Conservative's fault" Bob. You have to understand that even your beloved Liberal Party has done nothing other than talk about change, even when they had the power.

Every year scientists tell us that something they used to tell us was fact was wrong and that now they have these new wonderful facts we should believe instead. And we're supposed to revere these guys? They call it progress. Well we obviously can't have progress in science unless scientists don't know everything. Anyhow, so much for their omniscience. Perhaps if they were more prudent in their rhetoric, spin, hyperbole, political correctness and funds mongering we would have a better opinion of their credibility. How many scientists were wrong before Newton? All of them. How many scientists were wrong before Einstein? All of them.

Bob, great job, the scientific community are behind you. Federal scientists cannot speak out on this because they are muzzled. Scary but true.

As for those rabid conspiracy theorists frothing at the mouth with "evidence" of a smoking gun, you have been had, once again by the vocal but vacuous denial machine. The fallacious arguments and obfuscation put forth here by the cynics are predictable.

I normally do not recommend videos on YouTube or going to blogs to solicit information, but the following two are exceptions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

And that is just the beginning of refuting the ludicrous and fallacious claims made by the denial machine-- more will be following soon, but it takes time to put the facts together and compose a measured response rather than blindly shouting "hide the decline" on Fox. Denialists, cynics, please, don't try and claim to be enlightened when you cannot get the most basic facts straight. There is a giant void of facts and science on the contrarian side.

And while you are at it go to:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

The last graphic is particularly telling, the oceanic heat content has increased by about 15x10^22 Joules since 1955-- a time of declining incoming solar radiative and increased negative forcing because of anthro aerosols (atmospheric dimming). Think about how much energy that is. Do some research on the energy released by nuclear bombs.

Bob
How can you completely disregard the evidence that scientists, who are among the leaders of the AGW fiction, have manipulated their data to support their position. These people are morally corrupt. If they had to swear in a court of law about the accuracy of the data they compiled (data for past climate records, not future projections) they would be guilty of perjury. For you to disregard the evidence of fraud and pass it off as if it didn't happen is irresponsible. You also state that "peer reviewed" studies are the only ones worth taking into consideration and yet we have evidence that such studies can be used to perpetrate a fraud.

It is astonishing to see so many people dump their faith in all scientists over this.

To me, this suggests that our society is ripe for a foundational shift (and likely a regressive one) where the wisdom of the past will be the first casualty.

Send in the ayatollahs! There ought to be ayatollahs. Don't bother... they're here.

Global warming would be easier to believ in if it wasn't championed by eitehr people making ooodles of money off it or people who are so left of centre that they actually think a world government would be a good thing.

Look, lets say that I am a believer. OK. All I ask is that the measures taken to combat global warming involve NO fees, levies, taxes of higher cost for me AND NO CANADIAN MONEY IS TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER NATION.

Simple eh.

Of course this will never happen because it's really not about climate temperature but rather about a massive transfer of wealth and power from western nations to less successful ones.

Bob, Christians who have read the Book of Revelation have known that global warming is coming for over 1,000 years.
Revelation 16:8, "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire".
It is the wickedness of mankind that has brought down fire from the heavens. So let's get busy and reduce those carbon emissions!
By the way, Russia is very upset that it could lose its carbon credits in 2012 if the Copenhagen treaty is ratified by world leaders.

Robt.

Get some context on those e-mails. I'm done with explaining how ridiculously these e-mails are being taken out of context and blown way out of proportion. Luckily someone made a great video. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

And don't come back until you RESEARCH THE ISSUES YOURSELF. This information is all at your fingertips.

Bob, thank you for your sensibility. It is really appalling how people have turned on science all of a sudden. There is a HUGE disconnect between public opinion and the opinion in the scientific community over AGW. Polls in the UK showing a majority of people don't believe humans have been a primary cause of global warming are frightening.

Thank you CBC for not distorting the truth to show a false "balanced" argument. When one side has all of the evidence and support from the scientific community and the other side have nothing to offer that stands up to scientific scrutiny, there should not be the appearance of a "balanced" debate.

Unfortunately, science journals are boring and people are persuaded more by the people making the most noise.

It'll be three years before the CRU fraud is verified or rebutted.

Let's go have a beer, and wait before we cut cheques to China, shall we?

I'm not sure why science is under siege. Just because many people don't believe scientists about one theory doesn't qualify as a siege.

Daniel Rosa said: "A hacker goes into the computers of a small university, and selectively chooses a number of emails in order to show some disputable signs that some scientists may have been doing something (we don't quite know exactly what), and it's a big deal."

The CRU of UEA is not a 'small university', it's one of the most influential re. the IPCC, the emails weren't distorted and we do know exactly what they were doing.

If you'd have been following the debate rather than following the shepherd, you'd know that the major players in climate science have been suspect of having an agenda, witholding data, manipulating data, puppeteering the press and attempting to silence debate for many years.

Well, with the release and verification of the data, the critics have been proven right.

Read Bishop Hill's summary, which was written well over a year ago, then read the emails, pick your jaw up from the floor, then come back to the Quirks and Quarks comment board.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Good article - instructive not only about AGW and deniers, but about science in general.

You have maintained your usual high standard.

Dear M. McDonald,

When it come to climate change, the entire body of science that you speak so highly about has been completely and shamelessly corrupted and manipulated. Furthermore, as if it needed any more, the peer review process has completely been hijacked by the "green" crowd through fear and collusion. Every one in the climate change scam used the same body of data and all have been manipulated. Please do every one a favour, including yourself, do as you wish but leave the rest of us alone with this fraud and please stop perpetuating this scam. Take a page from your colleague Rex Murphy and please open your eyes.

Which brings me to one question: With this whole scam being blown wide open and yet you still stick by it, do you have a vested interest in Al Gores Cap and Trade scam/venture?

The only assault on science was the scandalous and surreptitious actions by the Hadley CRU 'scientists' in:
1) admitting there is NO warming and it is a 'travesty' they can't explain it";
2) destroying files and e-mails in response to FOI requests by other scientists;
3) manipulating data to 'hide the decline' in temperatures; and
4) the perversion of the peer-review process by blocking from publication papers of scientists who disagree!

Where is your outrage over THAT?

What Bob said!-double

Additionally: At the end of the day, there really is no problem for our planet re Climate change. The planet will be just fine. People on the other hand are going to die by the millions.

That's not a bad thing for the planet.

Whether people can or will do anything about that remains to be seen.

If you're interested in another perspective, here's a presentation by CERN's Jason Kirkby to another group of scientists:

http://www.the-daily-politics.com/2009/12/cosmic-rays-and-climate-j-kirkby-cern.html

(Scroll down to see the video.)

The presentation describes research into the link between clouds and galactic cosmic rays. Very impressive. And, yes, the referenced studies are peer-reviewed.

Hey Leo, from SK:

You claim to be a senior research scientist in the field of climatology that's skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. You say you've analyzed the data personally, and something doesn't jive. This is wondrous news! Maybe, just maybe, we're not quite as doomed by our rampant consumerist lifestyle as we once thought. I feel relieved to know that we have some time.

Would you be so kind as to provide a reference for your publications? Surely, when a senior scientist such as yourself can reveal fundamental flaws in a widely-held hypothesis their research gets published. Published in a credible journal, or two. Or more.

No? Didn't think so. Thanks for your unsubstantiated claims.

1. I am happy now that everyone is refering to this issue as climate change and not global warming.

2. Honestly thousands of years ago if scientists were alive when the world was cooling what would they be saying? Global Cooling, emmit as much carbon as you can to warm up the world.

Geeze, the real problem is not cliamte change it is man made pollution. We humans are very adaptable we can live in the hottest and coldest cliamtes this world has to offer but we cannot live if the air we breath gives is all smog, we cannot live if the water we depend on is contaminated with man made pollutants and we cannot live if the food we rely on is breathing, eating and drinking these contaminates.

I say go green not to save our climate but to save the enviroment that we depend on to keep us a live.

Once again, we see the victimizer playing the victim. It is people like MacDonald who are a threat to science, not those of us calling for greater transparency.

Personally I enjoyed reading this article, there may be some corruption going on in terms of information provided from some scientists, but the overall science community is concerned that we are not taking things seriously.

It would be great if we could use hydrogen or something to reverse engineer large ice masses from reducing in size too much, from both poles it seems at times large chunks are breaking off and without any science background that concerns me.

First of all in reality, it would not be all that hard to enforce a cleaner world environment, using wireless technology and new technology to remotely charge devices can help us to get rid of using so many cords, we could ban outright using plastic bags and finding an alternative product and encouraging corporations to utilize and at times mandate cleaner materials we purchase our products with.

I think we are already doing a pretty good effort, but it's not all that hard to do a whole lot more, even if it's "just in case" the evidence is real, I'd rather be safe than sorry, I don't think anyone is totally 100% sure about the impact we are having on our environment, lets just take a better attitude overall and find a solution that works for everyone.

Ben Mosher and TomF, this is one of the reasons the science and scientists are under siege:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats

Not even big tobacco did not stoop this low. Stop trying to hide behind calls for greater transparency. This is not about transparency for those in denial-- it is about creating doubt, character assassination and money for them, and they are using you as pawns to add "weight" to their often unsubstantiated claims.

The GISS data have been available for years. ClimateAudit (they have sent over some loyal disciples here it seems) had the tree ring data since 2004, but even up until a few months ago CA were claiming that Briffa was withholding the data-- not that it matters, the data belonged to the Russians.

Over 95% of the CRU data is available, they are not at liberty to release the remaining data. The CRU had been harassed and badgered by countless FOI requests. Many of those claims originated in Canada and represent abuse of the FOI system-- it is being used to harass people to give data that they full well know the CRU cannot provide because of legally binding agreements with international weather agencies.

These are complex issues that cannot be dumbed down into a sound bite on Fox news. "ClimateGate' is not going to be remembered for what you had hoped it would guys.

What I find most interesting is that the people doing most of the yammering about the Great Global Warming Conspiracy aren't scientists. Regardless of what is going on with the suppression or manipulation of evidence in the UK, the vast majority of those who are actually paid to know this sort of stuff, agree that human-caused global warming is here and it's going to cause problems. Compared to them, all the talking heads and industry shills in the world are just background noise. It is long past time for us to stop talking and start doing. Please.

Way to go Bob!

In my opinion science has officially been under attack in Canada since Rona Ambrose appointed Darrel Reid,president of Focus on the Family Canada to the position of chief of staff for the Federal Environment Ministry.

Next, the position of National Science Advisor was eliminated on March 31st 2008.

I fear what else the Conservatives will do!

To those who addressed their comments to me:
1) I have a B.Sc. (Hons) from U ot T and took intro and advanced statistics courses; and
2) While you can quibble over my 3rd point about manipulation of data what is your response to the other 3? No knowledge iof statistics is required.

Specifically, Kenneth Trenberth (an IPCC bigwig) did admit warming had stopped and it was a TRAVESTY (his word) they couldn't explain it. That alone is devastating to the whole AGW fearmongering industry.

Also, the e-mails reveal data and e-mails have been destroyed. You don't need a university degree to understand that.

Lastly, they were successful in their efforts to prevent scientists who disagree with them from publishing in certain journals (and, in fact, were able to get the editor of one journal fired).

Bob M has no business decrying the alleged 'assault on science" when he is shamefully silent on this scandalous behaviour of the 'scientists' he is supporting.

"How Important Is CRU Data?

... very:

The data from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University — headquarters for Climategate — is now discredited. This discredits any findings by other research bodies that relied on the Climategate data.

How much falls from Climategate, whose participants read like a Who’s Who at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Not much, says CRU’s disgraced director, Phil Jones, pointing out that CRU’s data for global temperatures is but one of several datasets, all in general agreement. Besides, many argue, CRU was no linchpin to the science. The IPCC relied on numerous other sources. Throw CRU out, they say, and the IPCC’s conclusions remain unshakable.

In truth, if you throw CRU out, you’ve eviscerated the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the most recent and most definite opus from the UN. This is the report, received with universal acclaim in 2007, which scarily stated: “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

The argument over global warming requires evidence that the globe is warming in dangerous ways. This evidence the IPCC presents forcefully in its third chapter on surface and atmospheric warming, which rests overwhelmingly on the official global temperature record of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, called the HADCRUT3 temperature dataset.

And who produced the HADCRUT3 dataset for the World Meteorological Organization? The Hadley Centre of the UK government’s meteorological office (the HAD of HADCRUT3) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the CRU)."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/05/dirty-climate-data.aspx

The CBC can try to hide it, but it's over.
The Climate Piltdown Man has been exposed.

When the strength of Science relies on "blindly saying the same thing over and over", Blackballing those who disagree with you, conspiring with others to destroy data, labeling people who disagree with findings as "Deniers and Skeptics", picking and choosing data that supports your theories (and ignoring that which contradicts your findings), and relying on politicians and "special interest groups" to convince the general public to accept your findings, then it indicates that the "Science in Question" is not sound enough to stand on it's own. Couple that with fear monger-ing and extreme pressure to have it implemented...and you have the makings of a SHAM!!
Any Scientist who does not openly welcome scrutiny of the work presented (from any and all sources) is either "not confident of the findings" or knows is it flawed!
If you apply this to what has been going on at the UNEP, IPCC, Copenhagen, CRU, and the Pro-Global Warming/Climate Change supporters - what does it tell you?

Just read the Royal Society's propaganda. Some things really stuck out in my mind.

Satellite and balloon measurements did not show any warming of the lower atmosphere, however an error was discovered, corrected and now shows warming.

Satellite did not show any warming of the troposphere, however an error was discovered, corrected and now shows warming.

Satellite does not show any warming of the troposphere near the equator, however probably due to errors that will eventually be discovered and corrected.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, does all of this sound familiar.

Bob,

You comment that there are no reputable scientists who dispute AGW orthodoxy.

That is simply not true.

It isn't hard to find reputable scientists who believe AGW is nonsense. One such scientist is Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).

Expert enpough for you Bob?

Here is what he has said today:

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

and again:

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years.

You can read it and weep at:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4369/Hurricane-Expert-Rips-Climate-Fears-There-has-been-an-unrelenting-quarter-century-of-onesided-indoctrination

Bob, I look forward to your interview of Dr Gray sometime soon.

Surely, you jest or are being utterly hyperbolic when you say that 350 years of science is under siege.

Science is NOT under siege.

What IS under siege is junk science, science based on a political agenda designed to make a lot of money for proponents of one viewpoint, while scientists who dare to question the inaccurate, politically motivated data are pushed out of the loop, belittled, and have their observations disregarded.

I am very disappointed in your defence of AGW and the scientists who champion it; it would seem, unfortunately, that you and the CBC have some kind of vested interested in the political agenda underlying the supporters of AGW, otherwise, given the evidence revealed in the past few weeks, which makes it clear that something's terribly wrong with the data, why would you continue in its defence?

If they would have been honest then they would not be in this mess. They brought it on themselves.

Bob, Prior to reading the first paragraph of this article I had never taken you to be disingenuous. Now, I belive you to be a liar.

The 'open letter' you direct our attention to was not drafted by '500 leading Canadian Scientists' at all, as you say. It was drafted by the WWF as a Canadianized version of a form letter they sent to many places around the world. You lied about Prime Minister Harper when you stated the scientists were, "saying that their voices are not being heard as he heads to the climate talks in Copenhagen". There was nothing of the sort in that UN generated letter. Also, did you check the make up of the 500 voices described by you? There are some scioentists in that group, to be sure, but many are not, Bob. Many are just citizens or students who are members of enviro-organizations, whose leaders only subscribed to be a part of that open letter.

Shame on you for promoting this deception.

When will the voice of far, far, more than 500 opposition voices, of extremely credible 'real' scientists be given equal airplay by CBC bullsh**ters like you? Bob, what the hell are you trying to do, man?

I have been a fan of yours for as long as you have been a part of CBC. I am rapidly getting so disillusioned with the obscene nature of the lying, I've decide to get active, politically. This is not going to happen without a fight.

Cliff Yerex, how will shutting down the clean industry here and moving production to much dirtier factories in China reduce pollution?

I think it is time to collectively WAKE UP.
We are long past the point for debate
We only have time for dramatic and bold action on this global crisis.

99% of the peer reviewed science and 1000's of climatologists from all around the world not to mention over 30 Nobel Scientists concluded that we have a huge climatic problem, we caused it and only we can solve it! Its Time To Wake Up!

I feel sorry for the deniers as they are simply falling victim to the same PR firms hired by the Tobacco industry to create doubt about tobacco causing cancer for 40 years and who have not been hired by the oil industry to create doubt about global warming. Its Time To Wake Up!

With over 200 species a day going extinct on our only planet we have over 20,000 species a year acting as tragic canaries in our mine shaft, screaming out that if we continue on our current course, that we will be facing a mass extinction that will make all others pale by comparison. Its Time To Wake Up!

We all need to be present to the fact that our very LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM is at stake and that inaction can only result in enormous tragedy for our entire eco system and for mankind. There is no moral high ground for putting the fate and destiny of mankind on the line with inaction. It is Time To Wake Up!

Copenhagen is perhaps or last chance to take to bold global action required to turn this tables on this global crisis. Every generation has had its challenges. For some it has been famine or war or disease and by coming together to work on the solutions we have always been able to overcome the challenges. This is the first generation that has had the very survival of mankind as our challenge. This is our challenge and now is the time. Nothing less will do. It is time to Wake Up!

When I hear this debate continuing so many decades after the alarms went off in Rio decades ago, it seems like we are arguing about where to place the deck chairs while we are sitting on the deck of the Titanic and can see a giant iceberg off our bow. The are no fools like those that play astidge when thier life is at stake. It is time for courage, determination, and bold direct action to address this global crisis.

It is TIME TO WAKE UP and TIME TO TAKE ACTION!

Ursus, you simply do not understand how the IPCC works, a problem with most in denial it seems. The people who wrote Ch.9 of AR did not write all the science; it does not represent only their work. Rather, they synthesized and integrated the scientific findings form hundreds of scientific papers. Go and count all the references cited in AR4-- it represents the integrated knowledge of thousands of papers and scientists. There are almost 3000 people publishing in the field of climate science, and only a handful of them are skeptics of repute and only a few of those have published widely.

Anyhow, this is not a popularity contest. The science is sound, it continues to advance, and the more we learn the more we are coming to understand that the situation is more serious than first thought.

As for rhetoric and garbage, that is the realm of the denialists, and ad hom attacks too for that matter (e.g., your attack on Bob).

Someone here was cited ClimateDepot. Oh dear, Google Mike Morano. Next they'll be siting Monckton or Tim Ball as reputable "scientists". Oh, and another denier cites the National Post...enough said. And before someone leaps to the defense of TIm Ball, not even the Calgary Herald wants anything to do with him.

Robt. you also have no idea what Trenberth was talking about. Read the paper that he is referring to, it is referenced in the paragraph before the cherry-picked quote that you cited.

About “climategate”:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Smacking the Hack Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

There are other episodes of Climate Denial of the Week. Well worth watching.

I particularly like this one: The Great Petition Fraud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=related

It exposes the fundamental dishonesty of the climate denial industry.

Garnet MacPherson writes:
"99% of the peer reviewed science..."

Sorry, the peer review process was perverted and corrupted by the SRU climate 'scientists' and therefore isn't a valid argument anymore.
Circular logic is not valid.

All the lies and hiding of the truth by the CBC won't change that.

"Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, NY

United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by:

1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
3. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
4. J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
5. Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
6. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
7. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
8. Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
9. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
10. Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
11. Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
12. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
13. David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
14. M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
15. Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
16. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
17. Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
18. Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
19. James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
20. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
21. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
22. Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
23. George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
24. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
25. Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
26. Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
27. Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
28. Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
29. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
30. Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
31. Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
32. Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
33. Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
34. Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
35. James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
36. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
37. James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
38. Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
39. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
40. Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
41. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
42. David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
43. Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
44. Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
45. Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
46. Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
47. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
48. David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
49. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
50. Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
51. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
52. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
53. Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
54. Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
55. Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
56. William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
57. Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
58. Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
59. William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
60. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
61. Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
62. James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
63. Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
64. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
65. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
66. Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
67. Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
68. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
69. Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
70. Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
71. Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
72. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
73. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
74. Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
75. Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
76. William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
77. Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
78. Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
79. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
80. Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
81. Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
82. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
83. Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
84. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
85. Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
86. Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
87. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
88. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
89. Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
90. Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
91. Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
92. Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
93. John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
94. Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.
95. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
96. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
97. Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
98. Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
99. Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
100. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
101. Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
102. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
103. Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
104. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
105. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
106. Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
107. George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
108. Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
109. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
110. Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
111. Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
112. Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta "Distinguished Agrologist"), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
113. Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
114. John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
115. Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
116. Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
117. Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
118. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
119. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
120. Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
121. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
122. Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
123. George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
124. Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
125. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
126. Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
127. Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
128. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
129. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
130. A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
131. Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
132. Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
133. Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
134. Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
135. James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
136. Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
137. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
138. David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
139. Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
140. Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
141. Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A."

MapleLeaf, here is where you have the blinders on. Scientists that study and publish in the field of climate science receive funding to study the problem. Do you not see the conflict here. How long do you think they would be able to continue if they published to the contrary?
Many scientists (some are hard to call scientists) spend a career on government funding studying in area's where they are never held accountable for anything. The study of temperature proxies by tree rings is a perfect example. They spend a lot of time and produce really nice papers, but are never subject to proper testing (peer review by the way means nothing)to see how accurate their theories are. I would like to see them take part in double blind tests to determine their degree of accuracy. They would never submit to such tests because their work would be exposed as pure garbage. Real scientists and engineers take up fields where their work can be verified, and peoples lives are at stake if they're wrong. I ask you to go to Wikepedia and read all the theories of what caused the ice age. Lots of study and theories, but the bottom line is, no one knows for sure.

"If there were good, peer-reviewed scientific publications that provided solid evidence to counter the climate science, we would run it. But such a body of evidence does not exist."

Here's a list of 450 papers:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

In answering the critics that say that the "other side" of the debate is always absent, the reply is always 'well, if there were peer-reviewed studies in good journals, we would include that'. But part of the problem with the politics of climate change science is that peer-review is a great tool for suppressing unpopular and non-conforming ideas, regardless of the validity of those ideas.

Don, unless you have a research chair, you as an academic do not have your salary paid from the granting agency. There is no conflict of interest. Those funds are used for many things, including field work, purchasing equipment and most importantly to support grad students.

Anyhow, you are making straw men arguments.

Stan "Sorry, the peer review process was perverted and corrupted by the SRU climate 'scientists' and therefore isn't a valid argument anymore."

You are making incorrect and sweeping generalizations. Actually Stan the CRU scientists did not pervert the peer review process. Chris de Freitas (a renowned "skeptic") the chief editor at ONE journal, Climate Research, subverted the peer review process by rubber stamping junk science papers written by skeptics. He was allowing them to publish junk science without them first going through the proper peer review. It was for this reason that the ethical scientists (some of whom work at CRU) were upset, and when the editors of Climate Research were notified of the misconduct by the denialists, they resigned in protest.

CRU was standing up for credible and ethical science, it was the skeptics who were undermining the credibility of the scientific method.

Please, do try and get your facts right, and do not believe everything you read on denialist blogs. Try these sites for some clarity:

http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-analysis

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

Maple leaf, why would you quote the Pew folks when they are part of the farce?
As bad as the emils are the computor code is far worse.
And the computor code clearly shows the CRU wasn't doing science.
So why would you try to make a scientific argument based on fraud and the disasterous computer code and the perversion of the peer review process?

Bob,
I belive in my fellow man and so it is time to demonstrate and use our collective strength.
To bring change to the way we live, throught conservation,the use of current technlogies, to reduce our depenency on fossil fuels,look to nature and rediscover from whence we came.
First we must demonstrate our collective will, yes by the thousands, and in every capital, our future depends on our will to make change happen.

Oh dear, it seems the only way the 'scientists' here at the CBC can win the argument is to censor comments.
You know it you think about that for a bit in light of the recent current events regarding emails and suppression of data there might be a lesson in there somewhere.......

Hilarious!

Maple leaf writes:
"They also do not understand how the scientific method works. Or they do, but choose to ignore the central canons of scientific method. The onus is on the denialists to prove the AGW to be wrong."

You must be kidding me!
The scientific method does not work that way.
If my theory says the moon is made of green cheese the onus is on me to prove that it is, it's not on you to prove that it isn't.
You can look that one up.

Stan,

Your tone is becoming increasingly offensive.

First, you start with a hypothesis, not a theory as you state; a theory is much wider in scope and importance than is a hypothesis. Second, science either supports or refutes a hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever proven.

There is overwhelming evidence (theoretical and empirical) amassed over a period of about 115 years (since the seminal work of Arrhenius in 1896) which support the theory of AGW.

As for data refuting it, there are only tenuous grasps put forth by denialists which quickly fall apart under close scrutiny. For example, Lindzen and Choi's paper published earlier this year-- even fellow skeptics (e.g., Spencer) refuted it. Yet , denialists continue to trump it as evidence that AGW is a hoax.

Bob:

Piltdown man.

40 years for the deniers to be proven right. And it wasn't in Scientific American or Nature that the fraud was revealed. It was The Times. Indeed, 3 years before being discredited, Nature was STILL publishing articles that accepted Piltdown Man as fact.

JE

Maple leaf writes: "Second, science either supports or refutes a hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever proven."

Really?
Better tell that to Suzuki, he wants to jail anyone who doesn't believe the AGW theory.

Yes science is under seige. By the corrupt 'scientists' at East Anglia and by YOU! It is bad enought the these fascists have perverted everything good in science for their political cause, but you too Bob are now also to blame. I am a lover of science. It grieves me to see you gloss over this corruption. If you really loved science you would want to do everything you could to purge it of these reprobates. Instead you are part of the problem, helping this psuedo scientist/political activists corrupt science.

"When it comes to climate change, science seems to have taken a back seat."

Science took a "back seat" on climate change the day that "climate scientists" decided pollute the scientific endeavour.

They did so by mixing science with politics and advocacy for their cause - which included co-opting a coalition of willing journalists such as yourself.

As for "peer review" being the be-all and end-all of qualification to be deemed worthy of discussion ... It is quite obvious that, in the field of "climate science", peer review does not include any verification - either by the reviewers, or by the journal editors - of the underlying data in support of the researchers' claims.

Thus, whatever the "consensus" on "climate change" (formerly known as global warming) might be, it most certainly cannot be considered "science".

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/delusions-of-climate-modellers-and-the-madness-of-crowds/

"When it comes to climate change, science seems to have taken a back seat."

Science took a "back seat" on climate change the day that "climate scientists" decided pollute the scientific endeavour.

They did so by mixing science with politics and advocacy for their cause - which included co-opting a coalition of willing journalists such as yourself.

As for "peer review" being the be-all and end-all of qualification to be deemed worthy of discussion ... It is quite obvious that, in the field of "climate science", peer review does not include any verification - either by the reviewers, or by the journal editors - of the underlying data in support of the researchers' claims.

Thus, whatever the "consensus" on "climate change" (formerly known as global warming) might be, it most certainly cannot be considered "science".

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/delusions-of-climate-modellers-and-the-madness-of-crowds/

Stan and Don,

Stan "As a committed environmentalist". This a false choice Stan. Besides, who said that I was an environmentalist? And what has this to do with Bob's article?

Don "Even Briffa thought the MWP was warmer than present. "
This a a straw man, and to my knowledge not correct. Where did he say that? Besides Mann et al. (2009) have hopefully settled this MWP fiasco once and for all-- the MWP was regional, and global SATs during that time were not as high as they are now. Denialists blogs might try and say otherwise, but they have not published several papers on the issue nor have they invested a good 20 years or so of their lives looking into this problem.

Bob and other reasonable, level-headed people are not listening to Fox news and making rash judgements based on sound bites and a few lines of text cherry-picked by quote mining. There will be an impartial enquiry into the emails and the hack. I will reserve my judgement until then and respect the official ruling. I would suggest that you and Stan, and everyone else, do the same.

Don "Had the tree proxy data showed more warming than instrument data from 1960 onwards, would it have been discarded?"
Read more about this at deepclimate.org. Actually, they were trying to reconcile several proxy SAT constructions. Things are never as simple as they may seem Don. You have not looked into this in detail and going by your post here, you have made an a priori decision as to what the "truth" is, and thus demonstrate bias. Ironically, one of the targeted scientists accused of fraud says:

"We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance."

This is not a skeptic, this is a scientists trying to do the right thing.

And for the record Don, I never called you a "denier", although you sure do sound like someone who is in denial about AGW. And before you get indignant, it is your ilk referring to those concerned about AGW as "jihadists" (Steve McIntyre and Edmonton Journal's Lamphier), or "Hitler youth" (Monckton). Calling someone a "denier/denialists" is calling a spade a spade, and has nothing to do with WWII, although you might conveniently choose to interpret it that way or invoke that excuse, but that is your choice. You are not a skeptic, the true skeptics are the scientists, they are required to be skeptical. Nor are not a 'realist'.

Stan "Better tell that to Suzuki, he wants to jail anyone who doesn't believe the AGW theory."

Actually, you are telling lies, and trying to move the goal posts again. Suzuki said "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act". Wow, I really do not think that you Stan are in a position to accuse others of misrepresenting the facts.

Dr. Suzuki or Al Gore do not determine the science behind climate change. They are just figure heads and "poster boys" for the denialists to discredit and try and undermine the credibility of the science-- they make for easy targets. What Suzuki or Gore may or not think or understand, does not change the science, and you guys just don't get it. The same holds true for denialists such as Senator Inhofe, or Marc Morano or Monckton. Except Suzuki does not steal other people's email and then purposefully misrepresent, distort and lie about their content and true meaning in the public eye. Nor does he make death threats against scientists who oppose AGW. Nor does he take money from (or has/had strong ties with) the FF or energy industry as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Ball and pretty much every other alleged "reputable" AGW skeptics out there. Don't believe me, do some research and see for yourself.

Oh and Don, critical thinking has gotten me far in life, that and my BS filter :)

My God Maple Leaf, are you suggesting that I shouldn't exaggerate Suzuki's remarks to bolster my argument?
What a ground breaking and thoroughly radical concept!

Now go tell that to the 'scientists' at the CRU.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how shutting down the clean industry here and moving production to the much dirtier factories in China will reduce pollution.

Should be an easy one to answer, shouldn't it?
After all that's how the treaty was arrived at wasn't it?
They wanted to solve the problem of emissions so their solution should in some way be aimed in the general direction of reduced emissions, no?
But oddly enough the 'solution' they arrived at is great at redistributing wealth and an utter failure at reducing pollution.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Why are you supporting a treaty that will increase pollution?

Global cooling deniers sure dominate the airwaves. Lord Monckton is no fool yet he will never be heard on CBC. This I find reprehensible as a taxpayer.
Monckton has now slandered/libeled ten or so of the top publicly-funded global warming promoters, calling them crooks,etc. on the basis of his citicism of their deliberately flawed models, specifically designed to mislead.
If he provokes no legal response from any of these individuals very soon, I think the question of whether or not we all have been had by a cabal of publicly-funded groupies will be finally answered without the help of the CBC. How very sad.

Why doesn't the CBC run Not Evil Just Wrong or The Great Global Warming Swindle as many times as they run Gore's lie riddled An Inconvenient Truth?
Gore's film has been proved in a UK court to be full of lies yet the CBC faithfully trots it out every chance they can.

Bob,
I saw you on CBC news lastnight marvelling over the liquid CO2 being pumped out at a South Pacific ocean ridge eruption. As undersea volcanism accounts for over 80% of the total volcanic activity, I am surprised that you didn't make the connection with,say, dead zones, acidic dissolution of reefs and other effects that the "climate changers"are constantly bedwetting about.
This is common sense. No peer review required.

Bob, no-one is arguing whether the climate has warmed over the past 150 years. The debate is over the mechanisms which drive climate change and whether it is unprecedented or not. Given that the earth 6.5 billion years old, it is highly likely that similar rates of warming have occurred before....just Google "abrupt climate change". So please stop using the word "unprecedented", it is incorrect and something which cannot be proven.
We also know that the earth has definitely been warmer, possibly as little as a 1,000 years ago, and certainly during the Holocene optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago). However, the mechanism which drove these warming episodes (and subsequent coolings) is unknown, and by your atmospheric bubble evidence it was not CO2. So the question is, if we do not understand the mechanisms which drove past climate changes, then why would we be so confident that we fully understand it now? How do we know these factors aren't at work right now? The answer is undeniably that we don't really know (despite what some climate scientists will tell you). The prevailing theory of CO2 being the main driver is weak and the evidence circumstantial at best.
Science is not about consensus or having the most scientists supporting a particular theory. It's about who's right, and only one person needs to be right...remember Galileo or Wegener?
The over-confidence of scientists who support the CO2 hypothesis is unfounded and arrogant to the point of being distasteful and obnoxious. There is a serious need for some humility here. The Royal Society should welcome scientific debate and skepticism, and so should you.

"Bravo Bob! This should be required reading. But as we all know, what's happening this time is that too many plan to make too much money from old-fashioned energy sources."

I disagree wind is in fact a much older energy source than fossil fuels dating back thousands of years and seeing a steady decline since the industrial revolution. Why is their money in fossil fuels and in discovering new sources of these fuels? It is because coal, oil, and natural gas provide energy more efficiently than other means. When John Rockerfeller started selling oil most people didn't stay up after dark, only the rich could afford whale oil but soon oil was power lamps and in time cars and machinery. It made possible the internal combustion engine improving efficiency by ending the need for steam. It has been feared that oil would run out since the 19th century but this has not happened It was feared oil would run out in the 1920's 1940' 1980's but this has not happened, why? Two things price signals and technology. As oil supplies decline the price goes up this encourages the development of new sources of supply investment in infrastructure prospecting and new technology. As long as the price is high people do more to conserve fuel and to fuel efficient ways to do things. As new oil fields come on line and people use better devices the cost of energy goes down and quality of life goes up. That happens not just with oil but with every resource, and it is why our quality of life has improve so drastically the last 150 years.

Ron, I have news for you. Bob or any of the AGW crowd will never read the book, nor any scientific paper that goes against their belief.

Most skeptics such as myself read all the information we can find, even the IPCC propaganda. I have no problem calling it propaganda, because that's what it is. The CRU emails prove that they conspired to produce the hockey stick. The one that Mr. Gore had to climb a step ladder to get to the blade.

Anyone that can work with spreadsheets I would encourage you to go to
www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca

You can download bulk weather data and graph your own temperature charts. I have done most of Canada. What you will find is that day time highs have not increased significantly if at all. Large cities quite often have an increase in the low temp reading. Probably due to the heat Island effect. There is a definite sag in the temperatures in the 60's and 70's, then a slight recovery in the 80's and 90's. The present temperatures have leveled off and now seem to be in decline.

Great report Bob!!
However what seems to be alluded to, but not clearly looked at is “WHY is there a need to create this skepticism”. The almighty buck?
Can our global economy handle the sharp reductions and life changes that need to occur in order to mitigate climate change? Who pays for the under-developed countries environmentally sound infrastructure? I’m sure those countries must be thinking, “You got yours, what about us?”
Forgive me, but I just wanted to show a different point to view. I do follow climate science and have reduced my own carbon footprint substantially by moving much closer to work and reducing my living space and energy consumption. Carry on the good work, my friend! Eileen