view counter

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government


Academic, Non-Governmental

Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort

The search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media

By Maria Gallucci

Mar 18, 2011
Google Earth image

Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the , a conservation group, said she hoped the Google program could tackle that challenge by engaging wider audiences in the scientific discussion.

"Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change, it is of great importance that climate change science, and the urgency of addressing the climate change problem, is communicated effectively to the public and decision makers," she said.

She added: "Involving the public more directly in the scientific process could increase the acceptance of ideas and help scientific advancements inform governmental policies."

A More Accessible Approach

Throughout the year, the Google fellows will sharpen their new media skills, learn data-sharing technologies and improve communication strategies to lend a more accessible approach to climate science.

Following a workshop in June, fellows will have the chance to apply for grants to support projects fostering scientific dialogue. Future participants will take on other socially relevant topics tied to science and the environment.

"The public's understanding of science across all disciplines is extremely low, because the scientific community is really siloed from the community in general," Amy Luers, Google's senior environment program manager, told SolveClimate News.

"If the scientists understand [data] in a different way than the public does, it is impossible to see how this information is going to be integrated in the way it needs to be to make policy and management decisions," she said.

Guys, I'm sorry, but the

Guys, I'm sorry, but the "hocky stick" graph is not that important.  It's funny, I don't run into this claim on other sites that much, but it's shown up a good half-dozen times here.  It doesn't matter which reconstruction you use, they all show that the global temp trend has been robustly positive since the 1980s.  Meanwhile the natural forcings have not been increasing over that time period. 

Of course, other natural forcings have been responsible for climate variation in the past.  But there aren't any that explain the warming of the last few decades.

Hockey Stick Graph

Alright... you agree then the Hockey Stick Graph is not good. Excellent, what graph do you want to use then that shows the natural temperature cycles for the past 1000 years? You must have some graph that shows the natural temperature variations before you can even begin to say with any confidence what is natural temperature rise and what is not. Since I don't believe in the Hockey Stick graph either, I chose the one the AGW people came up with in 1990 and published in the IPCC report. Using that 1990 graph as the source for natural variation for the past 1000 yrs... well you know the rest of the story.

I never denied the trend from

I never denied the trend from 1980 to 2000 was robustly positive. In fact I agree it was robustly positive. What I maintain is that all but 0.3 degrees of it can be shown to likely have been from natural causes if you use the 1990 IPCC reconstruction rather than the descredited Hockey Stick. However, you are also leading people to believe that the this robust warming has also been occuring from 2000-2011. Patently not true... the earth from 2002- March of 2011 is currently cooling.

I'm not saying that the

I'm not saying that the "hockey stick" graph is bad, but it's not what AGW attributions are based on.  It's a just a summary graph to communicate a single point, that the recent warming is remarkable in the context of the past 1K years.  

That the warming of the last few decades is attributed to human effects is not based on simple extrapolation or line-fitting (like your "model" based on the 1990 IPCC graph), but on a mechanistic understanding of the natural forcings and feedback that affect climate, and observations which indicate that they have not been acting in a way that can explain the warming trend, which is consistent with what would be expected from the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

So you don't think the Hockey

So you don't think the Hockey Stick graph is bad? ... then explain why

1) MWP (medieval warm period) is missing

2) LIA (little ice age) is missing

3) Sea level rise started rising in the early 1800s and pretty much reached its current rate of rise starting in 1850. The hockey stick shows global temps dropping for 1800 to around 1920 or so.

On the otherhand the 1990 IPCC graph (Moberg reconstruction) is consistent with all three of the above observations. One would conclude based on the data, rather than some model, that the Moberg construction is probably a much better estimate of temperatures over the past 1000 years and that the Hockey Stick (as well as Hockey Stick clones) should be discarded into the trash heap.

Review the science

First off, the hockey stick graph was first published in 1998, and since then there have been better statistical analyses regarding the graph. The argument that the Mideval warm period does not show up on the graph does not discount it's validity as the majority of "hockey stick" graphs do not extend that far back. If you want to see a representation look for a graph that depicts the last 2000 years.

Additionally, the drop from 1800-1920 is an obvious's a little something called the Industrial Revolution. You know, when there was a major boom in industires, i.e. those that pollute and eject millions of tons of aerolsols into the atmosphere that acted as refracting agents blocking incoming solar radiation. Less incoming solar radiation = lower temperatures.

Furthermore, the last 2000 years our Earth was on a general cooling pattern, that is until the last 100 years which have unprecedented temperature levels. The last 12 years have contained 10 of the hottest years in record. 

Climate scientists are NOT unsure about whether climate change is occuring, but rather how severe the consequesnces will be.

Love or hate the "hockey

Love or hate the "hockey stick", I don't particularly care, and it's a topic unto itself.  But the important thing to understand is that attribution of recent trends AGW is not based on that graph.

Then what graph do you use to

Then what graph do you use to show what your background (ie natural) temperature variations are and therefore current warming trends are not likely to be of natural origin? Afterall, before you can say that the current warming cannot be explained by what has happened in the recent past (say 1000 yrs or so) you have to show reliable data to support your claim. AGW supporters maintain the Hockey Stick (or a hockey stick clone) is their basis for saying the current warming is unprecedented.

Then what graph do you use to

Then what graph do you use to show what your background (ie natural) temperature variations are and therefore current warming trends are not likely to be of natural origin?

Again, that isn't quite how attribution works.  You don't just look at a graph of past variation, and see whether the current temperature trend resembles trends in the past, because there are many factors that can be (and have been) influences on global climate.  The issue is, what factors are at play now

What you have to do is look at how the natural forcings are behaving in the period in question (the last few decades).  Physically speaking, can one account for the current warming trend based on them?  In this case, no - based on measurements and observations, there are no natural forcings that have been increasing in the past few decades in a way that can explain the warming trend during that time.  You can't explain it mechanistically without including the effects of human effects such as the increase in CO2.

If you're asking how they develop their models for how each of these forcings and feedbacks interact to affect climate, that's a complicated topic - but it's not based on the hockey stick graph, either.

AGW supporters maintain the Hockey Stick (or a hockey stick clone) is their basis for saying the current warming is unprecedented.

I think the above statement is a correct one, that's the main way that graph is used, to claim that the current trend is unprecendented in the last 1,000 years.  I personally don't think that's a very important point, because we know that climate has seen much greater changes in the more distant past.  In terms of temperature, we're not even yet above the natural range of variation seen in previous interglacials according to the ice cores (although we're way above the previous range of CO2). 


Quite surprised at the many negative comments. Perhaps there is hope for our society after all. AGW politics, like most socialist derivations, will enrich the few at the top, while causing harm to many at the bottom. It's heartening to read that many are recognizing just how wrong this all is.

Bing has now become my search engine of choice. ByeBye GooGoo. 

Issue is trust not science

It is frightening to hear Google search engine becoming partisan on such a politicised and controversial issue and Climate Change.

 It’s trustworthiness, not science communication that is lacking in Climate Alarmism.

Daily exaggerations of claims, frank lies, contradictory claims, rent-seeking, fraud, criminal carbon trading – AGW has defined the concept of a ‘good dishonesty’ – anything goes if you mean well by wanting to save the planet.

Just this week – we learn the IPCC, claimed to be a bastion of climate expertise, used a 25 year old scientific unpublished nobody as a lead author: “The Strange Case of Sari Kovats”.

AGW started as a scientific theory and has become a political and a business scam.

Google – keep out of politics and ‘don’t mess with our free internet junk !

LarryT " I have been


" I have been following climate science since some of these same people were predicting a new ice age 30 years ago and was a contrarian then too. My pet theory is change in climate is driven by solar activity changes."

If your worked in climate science as you say, then you would know that the handful of scientists who's 70s published papers concerning cooling from human emitted aerosols were themselves  the contrarians.   A total of 7 papers suggesting cooling were published, while 44 papers projecting global warming from human emitted CO2 were published during the same time period.  Over Six to one.   It was the popular media that made the cooling hypothesis popularly known.   There was no consensus whatsoever for a cooling world.  These is overwhelming consensus for global warming (AGW) now.  It's a bona fide scientific theory.   The 70s cooling idea was just a hypothesis.   In fact, we have cut down on aerosol emissions, in order to slow acid rain and smog, with the result that the cooling effects of aerosols are not masking the warming effect of greenhouse gases as much as they were in the 70s.  We also started burning a lot more coal in the 70s.

  While you are welcome to entertain your pet theory that the sun is causing the recent warming, that's not what the science says.  If the sun were causing the warming, both the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere would be warming.  What is observed is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, just like it should in a greenhouse effect forced warming.

 Solar activity has been flat since about 1962, and in fact we are just coming out of a 100 year solar minimum.  It is not the sun.


Problem is models say the troposphere should be warming a lot faster than it actually is, and that it should be warming faster than the surface. Something is obviously wrong with the model.

Or rather, something was

Or rather, something was wrong with the data, which eventually turned out to be the case.  Analysis of the satellite data found that the records produced in the 90s failed to fully correct for the effects of satellite drift, and that once the corrections were made, the temperature trends were much more in line with model predictions.  See this , which includes "skeptic" favorite John Christy of UAH among its authors, and states:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Why stop at 2006. Look at how

Why stop at 2006. Look at how well the troposphere temps match the models all the way up to 2011 ( and the warming expected from average of IPCC models ). The divergence is getting worse and worse as time goes on. Better scream louder because your ship is sinking.

I'll look at the specific

I'll look at the specific data if you link directly to it (rather than linking to the home pages of the sites where you have presumably read about it).  However, I'll say it once again: cherry-picking variations around a handful of years is not really meaningful in the context of global climate change.  It's the long-term trends which are relevant in that context.

I agree that long term trends

I agree that long term trends are the more relevant. The troposphere is currently only 0.1C warmer now (2011) than it was at this time in 1980. According to the average of the computer models its supposed to be at least 1C warmer already. It would definitely appear that the actual warming rate is well below model predictions.

According to the average of

According to the average of the computer models its supposed to be at least 1C warmer already. It would definitely appear that the actual warming rate is well below model predictions.

Got a reference for that claim?

Also,... stratosphere not following models


"Some important recent findings in climate studies
are the warming trend in the troposphere and the
cooling trend in the stratosphere. However, the evidence
for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere
is slightly warming since 1996."


Stratosphere is supposed to be cooling, and it was following the models nicely for a while up until 2006 but then it switched from cooling to warming.

That's not a reference

That's not a reference regarding the troposphere trends, but a separate issue.  The authors suggest that it could be a result of the recovery of stratospheric ozone.

Reference is

Reference is Wikipedia


"...models show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39°C/decade."

Thus I would expect something on the order of 1C increase since 1980 would be consistent with the model.

Also from same Wiki reference:

"GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends are +0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively"

"lower troposphere trends calculated from satellite data by UAH and RSS are +0.140 °C/decade and +0.148 °C/decade".

According to models Troposphere temperatures are supposed to be increasing faster than surface temperatures, not the other way around.

If the recovery of ozone is

If the recovery of ozone is used to explain the recent warming.. then couldn't the loss of ozone be used to explain the cooling?

Also, sorry bout the missed reference you requested. I provided it and clicked submit but it didn't appear, Ill provide it again shortly.

You have to give this site a

You have to give this site a little time, I don't know whether their software is slow or if they've got somebody actually screening posts (poor person!).

Have been doing some reading on the topic... I'm not sure that you're on solid ground with the claim of a 1 deg C discrepancy, but it does appear that there is discrepancy with the satellite analyses.  However, there is also some uncertainty about whether this is the result of errors in instruments and analysis; results from other methods, such as , are more consistent with model predictions.  However, it's certainly possible that there is a problem in the models themselves - they are, of course, not infallible.

Open sea at north pole

Selecting images - GOOGLE "submarine north pole" Look through the the hundreds with OPEN water and the date many in the 50's and 60's. Look at the thickness of ice in those with no open water.  Compare this with the propaganda that the ice is melting and ther will soon be no ice at the north pole!

Arctic Facts

Sure , we will throw out all the scientific data and just use anecdotal interpretations of pictures of ice.

 Anyone who thinks the ice isn't melting rapidly might want to see the chart of Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.  

This winter, the Arctic had really warm temperatures, the kind unheard of in generations of native people.  Hudson Bay, which is usually completely frozen by the end of November, still wasn't all frozen in early January.  Spitzbergan above the Arctic circle -Forecast for December 29 is = 2C and rain.  That's 35.6 F 
This for Spitzbergen at 74.5 degrees north latitude, above the Arctic cirlce, dark 24-7 in the middle of winter.

Coral Harbour went 11 days without getting down to its average daily high.
•On Jan. 6, the low temperature was –3.7°C (25.3°F) - that's 30°C (54°F) above average.
•On both the 5th and 6th, Coral Harbor inched above the freezing mark. Before this year, temperatures above 0°C (32°F) had never been recorded in the entire three months of January, February, and March


Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
29 January 2011
Here is the latest data showing the record amount of ice loss Greenland experienced in the 2010 summer.
Around two decades ago and for some time before that, Greenland was probably in approximate mass balance - with ice gain in the interior matched by ice loss at the edges. Around one decade ago, the ice loss increased to around 100 billion tonnes per year. Currently, it's losing ice at over 200 billion tonnes per year.

Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Mass  2006
The amount of ice lost in two years is roughly the same as the amount of water that flows through the Colorado River in 12 years.
"This is a very large change in a very short time. In the 1990s, the ice sheet was growing inland and shrinking significantly at the edges, which is what climate models predicted as a result of global warming. Now the processes of mass loss are clearly beginning to dominate the inland growth, and we are only in the early stages of the climate warming predicted for this century."



Greenland ice sheet saw record melt, study finds
'Area of the size of France melted in 2010 which was not melting in 1979

"This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said study co-author Marco Tedesco
.... Greenland's summer temperatures last year were up to 3 degrees Centigrade above the average and that the ice sheet saw reduced snowfall.


There are no scientists who study arctic ice who believe the nonsense in your comment.

A sailboat navigated the entire Northwest Passage and the Northeast passage in one season last summer, a first in recorded history.  The Nothwest Passage has been navigable for the past 4 summers, another first in recorded history.

The Arctic is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the world.


More Anecdotal evidence from Climate Alarmists

Sailrick said:

' This winter, the Arctic had really warm temperatures, the kind unheard of in generations of native people. '

And you were saying WHAT exactly, in regards to anecdotal evidence ?


And by the way, the RCMP St Roch sailed the Northwest 1942. And it completed the journey in both directions.

Arctic Facts

When it warms, ice might melt.  No one is saying that no warming has occurred.  How much and why is the question.  Skeptics are always accused of denying warming, which is just another falsehood spouted by the warmists.

The amount of ice that is melting now seems like alot, but as a percent of the total mass of ice, I don't believe it is all that much.  I saw some figures some time ago that indicated it is only a tiny fraction of the ice, esp. in Antarctica.  Sorry, don't have the numbers handy, but I'm not applying for peer review so I'm willing to let it go this time.

The assumption that there is something different going on now than in th past is a stretch.  Since the earth has been warming and glaciers melting since the end of the Little Ice Age, I suspect that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of what was happening naturally.  To argue otherwise requires making the assumption that all warming is due to CO2, but that is anti-scientific so we don't do that, do we? 

I don't have data on the extent of Arctic ice during the MWP, or the Roman Warm Period, but would be willing to bet that there was even less than today.  Romans must have burned a lot of coal!!

Questions.  I saw a picture of a submarine surfaced at the North Pole, dated 1964.  Very little ice.  No satellites then, so no record of true extent.  Might ocean currents have at least as much to do with ice cover and therefore air temperatures as general warming?  Is the cause of warmer Arctic air really due to the reduced ice rather than the other way around?  Open water in the Arctic is known to raise air temperatures.  This fits in well with the fact that global average ocean temperatures are falling (warmer Arctic in winter, more heat lost to space). Some negative feedback by mother earth?  Also in play, reflected heat is up, highest in the record apparently (short record).  Is low cloud cover up, increasing reflection and reducing net warming from the nuclear furnace.  More negative feedback?




The assumption that there is

The assumption that there is something different going on now than in th past is a stretch.

It's not an assumption - we know for a fact that we are directly increasing atmospheric CO2.  That is different from what has gone on in the past.

Since the earth has been warming and glaciers melting since the end of the Little Ice Age, I suspect that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of what was happening naturally.

Okay, what natural forcings do you think can explain the warming seen in the last few decades?

To argue otherwise requires making the assumption that all warming is due to CO2, but that is anti-scientific so we don't do that, do we?

No, rather it requires that measurements of natural forcings show that they are not behaving in a way that can explain the recent warming (e.g. no increase in solar inputs during that time period), while the increase in CO2 is.

This fits in well with the fact that global average ocean temperatures are falling

Untrue - the most recent analyses show a trend of robust warming of the ocean.  See , .


Recent ocean cooling

Other sources point to lower heat figures (black line) and a non-rising pattern after corrections for instrumentation bias were taken into account. Did you know about those?

Corrected ocean heat

A closer interpretation may even show a cooling of the oceans.....

From Loehle, C. 2009. Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003. Energy & Environment 20:99-102.

Yes, I am aware of the Loehle

Yes, I am aware of the Loehle 2009 paper, which uses a reconstruction from . Lieulette and Miller did a reanalysis of the same raw data and came up with different results:

Monthly variations in global mean steric sea level computed by (gray line) and (black line).

The two differ in their handling of the early Argo data.  A third study, , used independent estimates based on satellite gravimetry in addition to another analysis of the Argo data (using only the measurements with the best quality control ratings), also found a very slight but positive trend over that period (they further explain that it "increased on average since early 2003 through 2006, then shows a slightly decreasing trend"):

All of which is perhaps beside the point, because arguing about "ocean cooling" over a period of a few years is very much like the specious "decade of cooling" arguments that were made by "skeptics" in 2009 and 2010.  One could pick many periods of several years in the various records, and point out that a linear trendline during those times indicates "cooling", but doing so ignores the overall trend of several decades, which is robustly positive (for both mean global temp and ocean heat).  It's the long-term trends which are important in the context of global climate change.


By the way, the Northwest

By the way, the Northwest Passage was free of ice when the Vikings settled Greenland in 1000 AD. It's NOT the first time and it won't be the last.

Ice coverage

Since the earth has warmed considerably since 1970, it should absolutely come as no shock that the ice area has decreased as well. Ice has gone up and down in substantial amounts even in one persons lifetime. You can find all kinds of evidence in history of vast differences in ice cover. However, now that the earth is once again entering a cooling phase, you will see ice coverage once again increasing in area within a few years time. (Because the earth is still relatively warm.. ie still close to its peak temperature of the past 40 years it would not be unreasonable to expect ice coverage to still be decreasing for another few years).

Can this be true?

Can it be true that Google are actively supporting the discredited notion that CO2 emissions are causing global warming to a dangerous extent? Will my searches on global warming now be biased towards the Google preferred sites?

If Google are supporting the AGW notion then they should also have the same funding put towards finding the truth on AGW. That is, no significant global warming for the last fifteen years, increasing Antarctic ice levels over the past century - not melting, sea level rise now at 3mm a year as it was over the same period, no Himalayan glacier melting, and that we are at a 30 year low for tropical hurricane strength. No cause for alarm if you look at the facts and the science.

However, I suspect that this is not relevant to Google who have other agenda.

If Google persist in this stance, Google will not be my searcch engine, because I can no longer rely on them. Once lost, trust is difficult to get back.

To Edward Brancroft

Edward, yes it is true. Google is owned and run by a bunch of leftists who live in a dream world echo chamber. The idiots don't even realize that having a "consensus" of scientific opinion is meaningless. Besides that they are incorrect. There are many reputable scientists that think that the climate cycle is driven by the Sun and other forces in nature that we do not yet understand. I ceased using Google years ago because they are untrustworthy and support "Net Neutrality" as well as still push this AGW nonsense.Yahoo and MSN work equally well and though I am sure that they also have a lefty bent, it seems all techies do, at least they are not bent on world conquest like Google is...

Discredited climate science? Nah

"Can it be true that Google are actively supporting the discredited notion that CO2 emissions are causing global warming to a dangerous extent?"

Really?  Sources please.   That is complete nonsense.  The science has only gotten stronger.   Lets see who thinks it's discredited.  I have two lists here. 

LIST #1  Professional scientific organizations that agree with the IPCC about AGW.

National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)


Woods Hole Resesarch Center

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

American Association of State Climatologists

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized by the Bush administration, and then Edited by a Petroleum Institute lawyer under the Bush administration to water it down)

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

American Association of State Climatologists

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Royal Society, United Kingdom

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Science Council of Japan

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

French Academy of Sciences

German Academy of Natural Scientists

Indian National Science Academy

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Institution of Engineers Australia

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

National Research Council

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

World Meteorological Organization

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

International Council on Science

American Physical Society (APS)

Australian Institute of Physics (AIP

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS

Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)

Network of African Science Academies

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council (IAC)

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

European Federation of Geologists (EFG)

European Geosciences Union (EGU)

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

American Quaternary Association (AMQUA

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV

American Society for Microbiology

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters (SAF

Deniers would have you believe that somehow all these organizations and the thousands of scientists from 120 countries, who have been doing the research for 20 years, and over 30 years for some, are all scamming you in some dark conspiracy. Wow, and they call the scientists alarmists!

Professional scientific organizations that don't agree with the IPCC.


American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists (CAPG)

That is the whole list.

Unknown scientific membership support of Academy statements

Thanks sailrick, for that comprehensive list of scientific organizations whose elitist Councils who have created public position statements re AGW, refusing to involve even a 51% majority of their memberships.

Following is a list of scientific organizations which have involved a majority of their memberships from start to finish in the process of creating their public policy statements in regards to 'AGW' , allowing a fair and realistic assessment of positions across the various disciplines:






Empty List?

Ha, I thought at first the list of associations whose members supported the political statements of their politically appointed representatives was not displaying properly. But then I realized that it was. So sad.

List of those that do not agree with IPCC

Take a look at this petition, where <strong>31,487</strong> American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhD's, expressing doubts about the notion of overt CO2 induced warming.

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Not difficult to find.

I cannot speak for the other Societies, but as for the Royal Society, United Kingdom, I have had dealings with them including chairing a conference at the RS, and I can say that although the RS may have a public view it is not the view of the majority of their members.

But how many of the

But how many of the petition-signers are actually scientists in related fields?  And what percentage of the total number of scientists in the word does 30,000 make (hint: very small)?

On the other hand, a recent survey found that 97.5% of climate researchers who were actively publishing in that field agree that humans are significantly contributing to global climate change:

Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" () General public data come from a .

Also on the 97.5%

And why did the survery question not ask "Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant controlling factor affecting climate change and is likely to lead to catastrophic warming and death of billions of people if we don't cut CO2 production drastically before 2050?"

Afterall, that is what they are using the results of the survey to insinuate.


There are lots of things that may have an effect of climate, including deforestation, land use, soot as well as CO2. Even if CO2 is only causing 0.3 degrees of warming, most scientists would claim that it is "significant".

97.5% Interesting

So... let me get this right. 97.5% of the scientists accepting money for doing AGW research believe what they are publishing. 2.5% don't believe what they are publishing?


Here is a more up to date poll, which follows on from: Climategate, the Copenhagen failure, and the Cancun non event, rather than the older one (more favourable to you) that you provided.

Poll 2010

"...a recent survey found that 97.5% of climate researchers who were actively publishing in that field..."

I would hardly expect them to say otherwise, as their access to publication might be affected of they do not follow the orthodoxy.

What's that about 87.6% of statistics being made up?

Yes, I have no doubt that

Yes, I have no doubt that public opinion is continuing to diverge from the views of scientists who work in that field.   The "skeptic" community is much more effective at communicating its message (which is inherently more appealing, in any case).   Although frankly, the "thinking about what is said in the news" part confounds the issue somewhat, at least for me.  Mainstream science journalism is notoriously bad, and they tend to exaggerate pretty much everything - something I've run into in my own field.

I would hardly expect them to say otherwise, as their access to publication might be affected of they do not follow the orthodoxy.

What's that about 87.6% of statistics being made up?

A classic case of "poisoning the well."  It's very convenient to your point of view, when you can dismiss the opinions of hundreds of qualified researchers in one fell sweep like that.

YEAH, baby!

You said it!



search engine

I too am switching to BING

Open letter to Al

Open letter to Al Gore

 Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of "wealth redistribution". On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing. The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun…. This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option. After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming......the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc. In 1992 Al Gore said that "the time for a debate is over, the science is settled"..... This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled. Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy. If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right. I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin. When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed the end he was right and they were wrong. When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy...but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong. After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the "scientists" noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to "Climate Change", just in case, to have all possibilities covered. Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud. People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused. Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years. There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam. All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

You are 100% right.  Al Gore

You are 100% right.  Al Gore and all his friends can warm up in jail.  I can'nt wait.

Terrorists are being brought

Terrorists are being brought to justice in criminal courts these days...
Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, journalists, the Hollywood idiots, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 20 years.
These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet.
The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension.
No criminal organization in history has ever come even close to having such a dezastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.
They should not be permitted to get away with it.
Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized.

[A]ll predictions

[A]ll predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

-Freeman Dyson

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options