If you would like to brush up on AGW scepticism here are 900 + peer reviewed papers you can read.

They have increased by about a hundred since I last gave you the link.

Some of the authors [such as Pielke Jnr] don’t even consider themselves to be sceptics:

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

Anyone who then proceeds to argue in favor of cap and trade schemes truly is playing into the hands of the Wall Street trader crowd. [ad hom deleted]
MODERATOR
Please read the commenting rules before posting again. The Sceptics and various Open Threads have slightly relaxed rules but you must always “play the ball, not the man” and courtesy is a pre-requisite. See link below to the commenting rules.

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/

As requested, I am reposting here in the “sceptics” corner… as if being a sceptic is something antithetical to good science.

[Brief intro here, although I'm somewhat known elsewhere in the blogosphere. I'm an experienced engineer, expert in computer bits and data manipulation, in map-based analysis (GIS architect etc), and more. I'm related to a climate scientist and a biologist. I've got a pretty good science education and ability to sort through things. I am all about good science. I've also been around long enough to see wrong "scientific consensus" in action -- in high school, my best friend's uncle was trying to publish evidence for plate tectonics and was given a VERY hard time for it...]

It’s interesting to me how easily the denizens of this site accept the “consensus” on AGW, which is in reality quite controversial (but highly affected by political and policy-biased agendas)… while at the same time carefully guarding a scientific perspective on nuclear issues against all opposition.

When I first looked into the AGW issue, I was quite surprised at how easily a person with an open mind and a willingness to carefully examine the evidence would find evidence that brings pause about AGW. I was NOT expecting this!

I will here provide references for a few of the “sceptic” things I have found rather compelling…even shocking (to me) when I first saw them.

[A reminder: the big AGW question is not "is it getting warmer" but "do we know that today's climate change historically unusual?" -- if the change we see today has happened in the past, or likely could have, then it becomes very difficult to prove today's change is manmade. That in a nutshell is why questions about LIA, MWP etc are of great significance. If natural variability back then caused warming similar to today's, we have a lot of work to do proving we have created today's warming... and proving we can affect it significantly. ]

My general sense (and my point related to the other thread): we must all be very careful both about being fooled ourselves, and about assuming everyone else is just dumb about the topic we think we know intimately. Bottom line: humility is a Good Thing when it comes to climate…and all of science.

Blessings,
Pete

PS: our much-esteemed host (I *do* appreciate his efforts on nuclear!) might want to consider retracting his AGW “Myth” arguments based on unsubstantiated science. As recent history has shown, peer review is certainly no proof of the correctness of a climate paper. Let’s stick to well-substantiated evidence, not just evidence that has run a friendly gauntlet. Sadly, I don’t have time to do others’ homework, and will leave it at that. On to what I wanted to say in the first place…]

————

Three simple statements, with linkies to supporting facts and/or significant supporting science papers:

1) The IPCC scientists themselves are not as certain as we’ve been led to believe.

A measure of this is LOSU, the Level Of Scientific Understanding. Of the 15 major IPCC topics, half (7.5 of 15) were rated “Very Low” LOSU at the end of scientific input. Then the managers took over. By the time the science had been summarized for policymakers and the public, NONE of the topics were rated Very Low in LOSU.

This is nicely summarized here (p. 11, Table 1 and text) but you can look it up for yourself to verify.

2) Arctic Treelines are a long-term indicator of climate. There is much evidence that the arctic was warmer (as much as 3-4C in some areas, overall close to 1C) than today in historical times…and not just in small localized areas.

Harvey Nichols is an expert on this subject. Here is a summary he wrote, referencing nine journal articles (Nature, Science, Quaternary Research, etc.) He provides evidence suggesting treelines were hundreds of KM further north than today.

And here is another overview with more detail (and also more speculation about possible attribution — take the speculation with a grain of salt of course).

There are a number of sources for this material around the world (they have a pretty complete picture circling the entire arctic); the Finns are well known for their research in this arena, for example. One such reference: Kultti, Seija, Kari Mikkola, Tarmo Virtanen, Mauri Timonen and Matti Eronen, 2006. “Past changes in the Scots pine forest line and climate in Finnish Lapland: a study based on megafossils, lake sediments, and GIS-based vegetation and climate data,” The Holocene 16,3 (2006) 381-391.

3) Similar to the fears of radioactivity, climate alarmists promote fear of glacial melt, as if the glaciers have been stable for millenia.

One of the most compelling sets of evidence for me in this arena is the ongoing series of revelations about material showing up, as glaciers melt in the alps. See here, for example. A (translated from German) popular article highlights even more compelling material. Bottom line: good evidence it has often been warmer than today in the last few thousand years.

[end]

Well have fun with it. You may or may not find these as compelling as I have. You decide!

We have a temperature anomaly of 30-something degrees. How much of this can be put down to greenhouse. Until we have an clear answer to this question we cannot be saying things like ” all physicists agree…” and pretending that this is some sort of scientific statement.

The amount of energy we get from electrical transfer may rival or exceed that from light alone.

Why is this still there? This is an unprovoked insult by someone who doesn’t understand the subject.

Now get rid of it or I’ll ring Barry up and complain to him personally.
MODERATOR
Don’t try to bully me. I am an un-paid volunteer and I have a life to live.I can assure you that you have no more sway with Barry than anyone else on this blog. Your outrageous ad homs are hardly the same as someone imputing you may not understand something. However, in the interests of equality I have amended that post. Now – play nice or go elsewhere.

Since the greenhouse effect was merely interpolated on a GAPS-basis it follows that if other energy sources are discovered the estimated effect of greenhouse must diminish. Nothing in that dummy Raymonds book can possibly undermine this reality.

graemebird, on 22 March 2011 at 2:26 PM
&
graemebird, on 22 March 2011 at 2:29 PM

as both appear to be beyond the moderation policy for this fine blog.
MODERATOR
I have just returned from lunch and have edited Graeme Bird’s comments and given him a warning to refrain from ad homs etc or be put on permanent moderation.

[ad hom deleted]Can you prove Galaxians claim? Yes or no Benson?

[ad hom deleted]
MODERATOR
Please refrain from incivility, ad homs etc. or you will be placed on permanent moderation.This is a science based blog and you will be asked to give references supporting your views.

graemebird, on 22 March 2011 at 2:15 PM — The University of Chicago does not share your assessment and neither do I.

The reason I say this is that I happen to know that the greenhouse effect has been interpolated on a “GOD OF GAPS BASIS” Do you understand what I’m saying here Benson? Perhaps you don’t. [ad hom deleted].

I’m saying that they saw an anomaly, they didn’t know how to explain it, so they assumed that this greenhouse effect explained all or most of it. [deleted personal opinion presented as fact. Please re-submit with supporting references]