Global warming

[mhaze]

It's not Greenpeace this time.

The second of the article links that Tricky provided, went to a story about The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have a report detailing how Exxon has been funding climate change disinformation to the tune of $16 million between 1998 and 2005.

Linky to UCS

Is this something new?

Thanks for the reply - frankly, for me the report from Greenpeace is discredited due to its source (Greenpeace). I'll download this new one and read it. UCS bends pretty far left, but they are not generally loonies.

The Greenpeace document referenced lists of receipients of money from Exxon funded charitable foundations. When I read those actual documents (from the 501C corporate returns) I saw no conspiracy, nothing really at all.

It's worth noting though, that many people - myself included - thought Kyoto was a very, very bad idea. Irrespective of GW and AGW, Kyoto was plain dumb. As it has been implemented, and as costs and "benefits" from it have started to be assayed, well, Kyoto actually looks far more ridiculous than some years ago.

So not yet having read the report - I can see Exxon/Mobil having a legitimate business interest in lobbying and fighting against Kyoto and those who portrayed Kyoto (or Kyoto-like schems) as "the solution". That's why I asked about 2006 - more recently, flaws in Kyoto have become quite clear.

Of course, it's also worth noting that Kyoto isn't dead, and there are various efforts to get the US involved in various carbon offset and credit plans which do not look smart, even if one is a cheerleader for AGW. I've found the folks over at the Gristmill website to be pretty fair and balanced, they are quick to point out scams in carbon trading

I'll get back after reading the paper and any verifiable stuff therein.

 

[Pipirr]

Thanks for the reply - frankly, for me the report from Greenpeace is discredited due to its source (Greenpeace). I'll download this new one and read it. UCS bends pretty far left, but they are not generally loonies.

The Greenpeace document referenced lists of receipients of money from Exxon funded charitable foundations. When I read those actual documents (from the 501C corporate returns) I saw no conspiracy, nothing really at all.

I suspect that most people around these forums would agree with you; I can't think of any occasion when Greenpeace has been cited as a reputable source....

As for UCS "bending pretty far left", that is to a degree subjective. But does it matter, if they are factually correct in this report?

 

[varwoche]

It doesn't have to be a media blitz if the funding buys access to the right audiences. But yeah, they have several media outlets.

And what's worse, free market bags of hot air such as Heartland -- DCI Group / Tech Central, George C. Marshall Institute, Malloy@junkscience, CO2 Science [guffaw], Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition come to mind -- are constantly cited here on a skeptical forum as if their blather should be taken seriously in science debates. This is patently absurd even if they weren't Exxon shills, but that doesn't stop true believers.

 

[David Rodale]

There is a well known bit of info by Greenpeace concerning this issue - not by any means "new news", that asserts basically the same thing. But when you go and look at the actual data behind the "2.1 million" that they allude to as having been spent to fund "the machine", it is really hard to see any significant allocations that can be identified as anti-gw. There were a few, but nothing substantial.

So I was wondering if some new data had came up, or if this was just more of the same-old-same-old.

CP: I realize that in explaining the "Greenland is doomed" you are accurately explaining the British press, which at least to us in the US is a curious and interesting thing - but here are a couple more headlines the British press might find some use for, all authenticatable by computer models and similar to the Greenland issue, in that the rarified edge of the model's conclusions is used for a headline -

NASA's Shuttle is "Doomed to catastrophic explosion in ascent"
London "Doomed to vanish under tital wave from meteor impact"
Airliner "Doomed to fiery crash in major American city"
Ipod users "Doomed to be struck by lightning"

Oops, that last one actually got into the press!

‘Greenland ice cap doomed to meltdown’ That infers certainty does it not? Evidence completely refutes the notion, but it’s “news” and since it comes from a “science” journal it must have merit, so some believe.

Yep.

As the latest Newsweek reports, there has been a concerted effort by some scientists, small in numbers but big in funding, to cast doubt upon the mountains of evidence for human-influenced global warming.
[qimg]http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/070813_Issue/070813_Cover.standard.jpg[/qimg]

Chief among the culprits is ExxonMobil who mounted a 'greenwash' campaign to dispute global warming findings. As a geologist in the petroleum industry, I am infuriated by this action by the world's largest oil company. It grieves me that scientists could be bribed away from the principle foundations of science in order to imitate places like "Answers in Geneis" by fitting the data to their preferred conclusions.

Ah yes, objectivity is the rule over at Newsweek. Nothing out of the ordinary in that cover story? Is there anything in the article that raises a flag? Is it not puzzling the opinion writer did not mention $50 billion since 1990 the U.S. government alone has doled out for global warming “research”? Universities, countless scientists, science journals, bureaucrats, environmental groups etc. have nothing to lose should those grants disappear? Is there anything at all odd about such a lopsided article? For those with an agenda it’s perfectly legitimate.

A few small public knowledge notables not mentioned by Newsweek:
1) $3 billion donated by Virgin Air mogul Richard Branson for ‘global warming’.
2) The enormous budgets of environmental organizations such as Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council whose two combined budgets total over $150 million.
3) $250,000 “donation” from Theresa Heinz Kerry to James Hansen.

Let us now research who is really spending the money.

Incidentally, where are all these mountains of evidence supporting the hypothesis of human-influenced global warming, hiding in the ‘missing sink’ with CO2? Unless one believes climate models trump science, the evidence does anything but support AGW as is currently presented.

There are geologists outside the petroleum industry who say it is AGW funding bribing scientists away from the principle foundations of science. Please give examples of how data is being fitted to preferred conclusions by those opposing AGW. They wouldn’t happen to be for example, connected to Greenland ice melt, sea level rise, unprecedented warming, solar influence, CO2, numbers of hurricanes and Medieval Warming Period would they?

 

[mhaze]

I suspect that most people around these forums would agree with you; I can't think of any occasion when Greenpeace has been cited as a reputable source....

As for UCS "bending pretty far left", that is to a degree subjective. But does it matter, if they are factually correct in this report?

Add to "the list"

Heartland -- DCI Group / Tech Central, George C. Marshall Institute, Malloy@junkscience, CO2 Science [guffaw], Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition
​

If they are factually correct their funding or orientation politically or otherwise does not matter.

 

[varwoche]

Thanks for the reply - frankly, for me the report from Greenpeace is discredited due to its source (Greenpeace).

I agree. I wouldn't cite Greenpeace not only because they are a biased source, but also because they aren't climate scientists. And even if Greenpeace cited an expert, I'd track down and cite the direct source and not rely on Greenpeace's characterization of the expert ...

Heartland-- DCI Group / Tech Central, George C. Marshall Institute, Malloy@junkscience, CO2 Science [guffaw], Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition
​

If they are factually correct their funding or orientation politically or otherwise does not matter.

... but that's because I apply the same criteria universally, whereas apparently you don't.

 

[mhaze]

I agree. I wouldn't cite Greenpeace not only because they are a biased source, but also because they aren't climate scientists. And even if Greenpeace cited an expert, I'd track down and cite the direct source and not rely on Greenpeace's characterization of the expert ...
... but that's because I apply the same criteria universally, whereas apparently you don't.

But you will probably be around to correct or criticize any such "error" I might make or any opinion presented that could not be substantiated with evidence.

Caveat: I will reject any rebuttals of an argument that cannot be proven without buying an article online. If you provide a reference, well then, actually provide it, and I'll read it.

 

[mhaze]

It's not Greenpeace this time.

The second of the article links that Tricky provided, went to a story about The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have a report detailing how Exxon has been funding climate change disinformation to the tune of $16 million between 1998 and 2005.

Linky to UCS

Is this something new?

It is an elaboration of the prior report I read, in that it covers more years. The links are to ExxonSecrets.org, as are the appendices (same as the prior report). Exxonsecrets.org is completely different than last time I looked at it, the prior content is no doubt available through Wayback.org. The paper really documents Exxon's opposition - not from 1998 on but from 1992 on - to Kyoto.

Now to the central question.

Exxon obviously has a right to fund research and to pay lobbyists, etc. No one would argue with that. They also have a right to argue against climate change legislation that they believe is ill conceived or detrimental to their business interests or the interests of society at large.

This does not justify "disinformation" or "misinformation".

So it seems like the thing to ask really is did they engage in disinformation or misinformation?

I see no evidence of that whatsoever. The definitely did not like Kyoto, argued against it, lobbied against it, and paid think tanks to generate position papers on this subject.

Well, hasn't the evidence proven them right?

The current mess that Europe, Australia and Canada are in with Kyoto and the fact the US did not get into it (partly due to Exxon influence if you agree with the assertions of this paper, although one FOI email clearly says that they didn't have much influence with the administration).

Just looking at the debacle of Kyoto, though,

If
A. Exxon lobbied, funded, etc. to keep us out of Kyoto
B. Kyoto turned out to be bad/ineffective/non productive/costly
Then
C. Were not Exxon the good guys?

 

[lomiller]

But you will probably be around to correct or criticize any such "error" I might make or any opinion presented that could not be substantiated with evidence.

Caveat: I will reject any rebuttals of an argument that cannot be proven without buying an article online. If you provide a reference, well then, actually provide it, and I'll read it.

Given that most major peer reviewed journals require a subscription to view their papers online your position amounts to a total rejection of the top tier research on any given topic…

I’m more then willing to accept a summarized version of the contents on a peer reviewed paper provided:
a) the person doing the summarizing has some background and credentials of their own to give them crdibility in the field
b) the summary isn’t challenged. If it is then I’ll try to look deeper to find out who’s right.

 

[mhaze]

Given that most major peer reviewed journals require a subscription to view their papers online your position amounts to a total rejection of the top tier research on any given topic…

I’m more then willing to accept a summarized version of the contents on a peer reviewed paper provided:
a) the person doing the summarizing has some background and credentials of their own to give them crdibility in the field
b) the summary isn’t challenged. If it is then I’ll try to look deeper to find out who’s right.

It's a problem that should be discussed.

A lot of times the papers are floating around the web, or on the scientist's web site. Hansen's are on the NASA site for example. It just seems that way too often, the abstract really isn't sufficient.

 

[lomiller]

It's a problem that should be discussed.

A lot of times the papers are floating around the web, or on the scientist's web site. Hansen's are on the NASA site for example. It just seems that way too often, the abstract really isn't sufficient.

Yes it should be discussed, but what usually happens with scientific literature? The average person, even the very well educated person who makes an effort to read and understand the state of the art literature can’t fully understand leading edge science.

How often do you see this lack if understanding preyed on? It’s become a standard playbook for scientific fraud. Convince people that because they don’t understand something the people who spend their lives studying it don’t understand either. Then can either offer them a “simple” alternative explanation, appeal to their political biases to get them on your side or mislead them in some other way. The first step, however is almost always to try and convince people something “isn’t understood”.

This is why scientific consensus is so important; it’s our only real defense against being mislead using the technique of casting doubt in order to offer up an unsubstantiated alternative. Certainly we can’t take a consensus at face value, and even if we don’t fully understand the science itself we are capable of understanding the way the scientific process should operate and should make sure the process, at least, is sound.

To me the biggest red flag of a hoax or misinformation is almost always the attempt to disavow or ignore scientific consensus, or “scientific establishment”. There is a correct way to challenge scientific consensus and that is to put together and fully document a strong alternative and publish it for peer review. When you can put together a strong enough case the consensus will change.

CO2 induced warming has reached this type of consensus, so the challenge to it needs to be more then simply trying to cast doubt. The challenge needs to consist of a well documented alternative cause for global warming or well documented reason why CO2 can’t be causing the current global warming or well documented proof that warming isn’t occurring. So far none of these things are appearing in the peer review literature.

 

[varwoche]

But you will probably be around to correct or criticize any such "error" I might make or any opinion presented that could not be substantiated with evidence.

True.

You fail to explain why you flat out reject information from Greenpeace but not the free market bags of hot air who shill for Exxon.

I will reject any rebuttals of an argument that cannot be proven without buying an article online. If you provide a reference, well then, actually provide it, and I'll read it.

I'm with you here, as the subscriptions to the various journals are expensive* and there are numerous of them. This means that if we're budget conscious, we have to rely on abstracts and sources that are as direct as possible and as non-biased as possible.

* It's especially annoying that we are expected to pay to see government funded studies, seeing as our tax dollars paid for the studies.

 

[mhaze]

Yes it should be discussed, but what usually happens with scientific literature? The average person, even the very well educated person who makes an effort to read and understand the state of the art literature can’t fully understand leading edge science.

How often do you see this lack if understanding preyed on? It’s become a standard playbook for scientific fraud. Convince people that because they don’t understand something the people who spend their lives studying it don’t understand either. Then can either offer them a “simple” alternative explanation, appeal to their political biases to get them on your side or mislead them in some other way. The first step, however is almost always to try and convince people something “isn’t understood”.

This is why scientific consensus is so important; it’s our only real defense against being mislead using the technique of casting doubt in order to offer up an unsubstantiated alternative. Certainly we can’t take a consensus at face value, and even if we don’t fully understand the science itself we are capable of understanding the way the scientific process should operate and should make sure the process, at least, is sound.

To me the biggest red flag of a hoax or misinformation is almost always the attempt to disavow or ignore scientific consensus, or “scientific establishment”. There is a correct way to challenge scientific consensus and that is to put together and fully document a strong alternative and publish it for peer review. When you can put together a strong enough case the consensus will change.

CO2 induced warming has reached this type of consensus, so the challenge to it needs to be more then simply trying to cast doubt. The challenge needs to consist of a well documented alternative cause for global warming or well documented reason why CO2 can’t be causing the current global warming or well documented proof that warming isn’t occurring. So far none of these things are appearing in the peer review literature.

Personally I do not feel capable of generalizing to the extent you have. And if you check the IPCC, you will find no consensus and high uncertainty on a number of subjects: Glacial melt, input parameters to climate models, aerosol and suflates effects; clouds and water vapor effects come to mind offhand. Further, and leaving aside the issue of "co2 induced warming" for a moment, in this thread we've had a rather long discussion about a very basic issue: Greenland. And it seems terribly confused, right? Did the IPCC say it was melting? Over what time? Is that right? Who agrees? Etc. And the source article if you trace it back ---

(original newspaper ref by Safe) <--- New Scientist article <--- Nature, a paid article.

Which led me to me comment about original sources. Think about it. We've just had a rather lengthy thread here about Greenland, but (most likely) no one has read the source article.. And I feel pretty certain that most or many of the readers here could read and comprehend that article.

You've raised an interesting point, nonetheless.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The challenge needs to consist of a well documented alternative cause for global warming or well documented reason why CO2 can’t be causing the current global warming or well documented proof that warming isn’t occurring. So far none of these things are appearing in the peer review literature.

"Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

Lin Zhen-Shan1 and Sun Xian1(1) The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China


Received: 2 May 2005 Revised: 24 October 2005 Accepted: 6 April 2006 Published online: 31 July 2006

Summary

A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Peer reviewed global cooling

" Peer-reviewed global cooling

A large portion of physicists in Russia, especially solar physicists, have reached a "scientific consensus" - as others would call it - that the Earth will enter a period of global cooling in a couple of years and the temperatures will drop to the minimum sometime in the middle of this century.

If they're right, a period of deep freeze will start around 2055-2060 and last for 50 years or so. These predictions are based on a detailed analysis of internal dynamics of the Sun. 2007 is the International Heliophysical Year so you're not supposed to dismiss this science without reading it. Unfortunately, I cannot verify all these statements.

In the West, it has become popular for many activists such as Naomi Oreskes to claim that there is no peer-reviewed literature that contradicts the fashionable theory of the so-called global warming. Well, that's very far from reality as everyone who is familiar with basic research directions in this field knows very well. Whether or not we think that all these papers are right or not, it's a fact that there is even peer-reviewed literature that argues that we're gonna experience global cooling.

Because problems with similar statements are being looked for about 1,000 times more intensely by certain groups than problems with their own statements, I must offer you several links that would otherwise be unnecessary. ;-)

"Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies" is a peer-reviewed journal that Springer translates from Ukrainian together with other journals in Russian (thanks for the correction, Gene!): click the Springer link, read the first sentence, and find the title of the journal. ;-) An article by Habibullo I. Abdussamatov in this journal published in 12/2005 discusses some of these solar cycles that are relevant for the climate. You may prefer another text about similar topics in conference proceedings published by Cambridge University Press. Other sources where similar articles were written include

* Bulletin of Crimea Observatory Vol. 103, pp. 122-127, 2006
* Proceedings of the All-Russian Conference in Troitsk, Izmiran, pp. 3-8, 2006

It's not just theoretical papers that are dedicated to these questions and explanations.

* Astrometria

is a project to measure the temporary variations of the shape and the diameter on the Russian segment of the International Space Station. The pages belong to the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Pulkovo."

Go to the original page and follow the link to the peer - reviewed articles. There are too many to cut and paste here

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html

 

[mhaze]

Looks like some stuff worth digging into. Quite interesting to see opposition to the GW/AGW arise in Russia; the country is on the verge of a literal goldmine in carbon credits capable of being traded.

Although I guess you could have it both ways; publish literature that there was no GW/AGW and take all the money you could from the West who believed there was....

 

[lomiller]

Go to the original page and follow the link to the peer - reviewed articles. There are too many to cut and paste here

I honestly didn’t see that many links to peer reviewed papers on climate change on that blog. The ones that are there mostly deal with either possible future changes in solar output and the impact of solar output in pre industrial times.

The problem is that no one disputes the impact of solar output on pre industrial climate. The fact that that solar output can cause climate change doesn’t mean nothing else can. Furthermore we can effectively exclude solar variation as a factor in late 20th century climate.
From a recent paper for the Royal Society (Can’t link due to post count)

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

Regarding some of the specific papers cited.

A large portion of physicists in Russia, especially solar physicists, have reached a "scientific consensus" - as others would call it - that the Earth will enter a period of global cooling in a couple of years and the temperatures will drop to the minimum sometime in the middle of this century.

If they're right, a period of deep freeze will start around 2055-2060 and last for 50 years or so. These predictions are based on a detailed analysis of internal dynamics of the Sun.

This is not a prediction of global cooling, it’s a prediction of reduced solar output something that may or may not trigger global cooling. Since surface temperatures are already rising despite the fact solar output has been stable or slightly declining since ~1960 it unlikely that solar intensity is driving current warming or will cause cooling in the near future.

Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years.

This is a localized study, which can vary significantly from overall trends. It isn’t saying CO2 doesn’t cause warming but that it’s effect will be swamped by local temperature trends. Those local temperature trends are not based on a physical model, but instead are based on past statistical trends. I’m a little leery of accepting without an underlying physical explanation for those trends especially when they conflict with predictions based on underlying physical models.

 

[lomiller]

Personally I do not feel capable of generalizing to the extent you have. And if you check the IPCC, you will find no consensus and high uncertainty on a number of subjects: Glacial melt, input parameters to climate models, aerosol and suflates effects; clouds and water vapor effects come to mind offhand. Further, and leaving aside the issue of "co2 induced warming" for a moment, in this thread we've had a rather long discussion about a very basic issue: Greenland. And it seems terribly confused, right? Did the IPCC say it was melting? Over what time? Is that right? Who agrees? Etc. And the source article if you trace it back ---

(original newspaper ref by Safe) <--- New Scientist article <--- Nature, a paid article.

Which led me to me comment about original sources. Think about it. We've just had a rather lengthy thread here about Greenland, but (most likely) no one has read the source article.. And I feel pretty certain that most or many of the readers here could read and comprehend that article.

You've raised an interesting point, nonetheless.

It's impossible not to generalize when dealing with a complex topic in limited space. I think it's fitting that there is a lot of debate over the details of forumlating the IPCC report and the predictions it makes. I don't see much disagreement in the IPCC on the big picture item, that CO2 and other human activity are warming the planet.

Its true there is no real agreement and many unknowns on Greenland melt rates. What is agreed on is that much of the Greenland ice cap has melted with temperatures about 3 deg warmer then today and that would raise sea levels by about 6 meters (20 feet). 3 deg is also within the range of predictions due to CO2 warming. There is little agreement on how fast this melting could occur and the 3 deg of warming starts to get far enough into the future that there is a lot of uncertainty in the models.

Will it happen? It seems a likely possibility, but there is no agreement on when or how quickly so it doesn’t make the final reports predictions for sea level rise (and rightly so). Given the potential damage it’s still a risk that needs to be taken into account when deciding public policy.


You are also correct in pointing out that there is a lot of uncertainty about aerosols, but there is also a lot of agreement that they have a much shorter term effect then CO2. This means that CO2 warming, on which there is a lot of agreement, will continue to rise, while aerosol induced cooling of which there is a lot of uncertainty will be fairly stable. (This was part of the global cooling vs global warming debate in the 70's, both effects were known at the time but there was a lot if uncertianty over which was stronger. Today most people agree CO2 has a greater long term effect due to it's longer lifespan in the atmosphere.)

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I was responding to this:

The challenge needs to consist of a well documented alternative cause for global warming or well documented reason why CO2 can’t be causing the current global warming or well documented proof that warming isn’t occurring. So far none of these things are appearing in the peer review literature.

I guess that those things have appeared in peer reviewed literature, as I have showed. The chinese paper conclusions are about global climate, not local weather.


Also , I know very weell how hard is to be published or get grants if you don't agree with the "consensus". Censorship is alive and well (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-scientists.htm, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070123a.html, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html)
so is very hard to find American or European papers against AGW. Some scientists (see "the Global Warning Swindle", and for an opinion on that the first link in this post) declare that get funds for research is almost impossible is you don't suscribe to AGW. Comparing the alleged funding from Exxon and others againsts the huge amount of money Government, Foundations, Companies (like Monsanto) and private donors put to stablish AGW as consensus science shows that, if that is a matter of money, AGW activists are the ones bribing scientists.

Anyway, enought ranting. Sorry if it bother you. Got a problem? Blame Global Warming
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2045/

 

[mhaze]

True.

You fail to explain why you flat out reject information from Greenpeace but not the free market bags of hot air who shill for Exxon.

Good question, admittedly both are very sided.

A decent answer might be that I would like to see a certain percentage of content to be worth reading or I'll not go back. What is that percentage? Maybe 10-20%? It seems at Greenpeace, I have hit a zero every time I tried reading something. The "gas bags", actually I threw them in the basket just for grins.

The two that I recall offhand having repeatedly seen good things at (this is not a specific statement about GW, rather just in general) would be Tech Station and Junk Sci. Cato is also good, of course they are sided by definition being libertarian.

"Free market gas bags" is an interesting apellation - I don't see these websites as accurately describing any particular free market theory or economics, exception being Cato. No doubt they claim they are free market or some such. Obviously, the group of websites above mentioned are not prime on peer reviewed technical articles. We sort of seem to have to scrape the web to find those pdfs, but a lot of them are out there.

I'm with you here, as the subscriptions to the various journals are expensive* and there are numerous of them. This means that if we're budget conscious, we have to rely on abstracts and sources that are as direct as possible and as non-biased as possible.

It's a problem. I started reading one of Hansen's the other day and after page after page of talk about "adjustments", just gave up. That would not have been evident in the abstract...

In all fairness, he was dealing with cruddy data sets - but hey, garbage in, garbage out.

* It's especially annoying that we are expected to pay to see government funded studies, seeing as our tax dollars paid for the studies.

That is bizzaro.