NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Gore has received this year's Nobel Peace Prize for 2007, sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/images/Nobel_medalje.jpg

It's a good decision and an important gesture, emphasizing the importance of changing the way we treat our planet and its resources.

Does NSG believe that the US will finally accept its global responsibility when it comes to pollution and emitting green house gases? I mean, even Australia has changed its approach at the Bali conference.

Some might say that he doesn't deserve it though, because his crappy documentary may have only hindered the cause.

Until Gore can bring true peace and unity to his creation, the Internet, I will not support him winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr. Gore, tear down this firewall!

I look at this thread and suspect that despite the best of intentions, sooner or later...

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/hitting%20the%20fan.gif

I look at this thread and suspect that despite the best of intentions, sooner or later...

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/hitting%20the%20fan.gif

Someone will throw poo?

I find it kind of shocking that they couldn't find anyone more deserving to give the peace prize to. Giving it to Gore is a pretty far stretch.

Someone will throw poo?

Yep. I know poo throwing. I can sense thrown poo is imminent.

Wasnt this news like 2 months ago?

Yep. I know poo throwing. I can sense thrown poo is imminent.

Aren't you proud owner of a poo cannon?

Yep. I know poo throwing. I can sense thrown poo is imminent.

So, you have Poo-Dar?

Wasnt this news like 2 months ago?

He was just now actually awarded it. Not that his receiving it will make a bit of difference. China and the US will change when it becomes profitable to change, and not before.

So, you have Poo-Dar?

It's more of a psychic gift really.

Telepoothy. :)

Aren't you proud owner of a poo cannon?

I helped design and build it, but it was never mine. Actually, the Poo Cannon has been dismantled. Which is for the best. Poo should never travel at ballistic speeds. *nod*

I find it kind of shocking that they couldn't find anyone more deserving to give the peace prize to. Giving it to Gore is a pretty far stretch.

To be fair the world is hardly all hugs and love right now, but despite that fact I agree that you can probably find more worthy recipients of a peace prize in the local soup kitchen.

After Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, he hopped into his Porsche, drove to the airport, got onto his Private Aircraft and flew home to Tennessee in his mansion.

I helped design and build it, but it was never mine. Actually, the Poo Cannon has been dismantled. Which is for the best. Poo should never travel at ballistic speeds. *nod*

Tell that again when I have diarrhea :(

I'm of the opinion that they should've given to someone who actually, well, did something I guess is the best way to put it.

Gore made a movie: whether all he did was bring light to the debate or just add gas to a fire that was already there is up for grabs.

I'd rather see the award go to someone that actually invented a solution, came up with a solution that would help. Action rather than simply a call to action.

Not only did he not actually do anything to stop and reverse global warming, he didn't even do anything to foster peace, only fear.

After Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, he hopped into his Porsche, drove to the airport, got onto his Private Aircraft and flew home to Tennessee in his mansion.

Why do you lie?

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00652/NOBEL__tittel_NY_jp_652102g.jpg
(Arriving Oslo by train)

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00654/NOBELS_FREDSPRIS__G_654251s.jpg
(Staying in Oslo for the night)

*Throws poo at the liar*

I look at this thread and suspect that despite the best of intentions, sooner or later...

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/hitting%20the%20fan.gif

*throws poo at LG*

After Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, he hopped into his Porsche, drove to the airport, got onto his Private Aircraft and flew home to Tennessee in his mansion.

But it's like totally okay that he did that since he bought carbon credits to offset!

Why do you lie?

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00652/NOBEL__tittel_NY_jp_652102g.jpg
(Arriving Oslo by train)

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00654/NOBELS_FREDSPRIS__G_654251s.jpg
(Staying in Oslo for the night)

*Throws poo at the liar*

Where can I get on the train from America to Oslo?

But it's like totally okay that he did that since he bought carbon credits to offset!

Yes, because as we all know, paying someone else to pollute less is easier to do than by sticking by what you tell other people to do and you know...change your own habits.

Some might say that he doesn't deserve it though, because his crappy documentary may have only hindered the cause.

What some might say doesn't matter. It matters what the Nobel Committee says. And how has the movie hindered the cause? Unless of course the cause you're talking about is Exxon.

A court here in the Uk has ruled that his film can only be shown in schools here if a number (nine, I think it was) of major mis-statements & exaggerations that are included in it are pointed out to the audience...

A court here in the Uk has ruled that his film can only be shown in schools here if a number (nine, I think it was) of major mis-statements & exaggerations that are included in it are pointed out to the audience...

What kind of mis-statements and exaggerations? (One of the audience who missed them).

Addendum : Poo-dar works like a reverse gay-dar.

*throws poo at LG*

*ducks flying poo* Hah! You think this is the first time I've had poo thrown at me? You are sady mistaken! :p

What kind of mis-statements and exaggerations? (One of the audience who missed them).
Here... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm)

Where can I get on the train from America to Oslo?

That's the train from the airport to Oslo. Will he drive from the city back to the airport, or take the train like he did when he arrived? I guess we'll see when he leaves. It's easy to fabricate bullshit to make a cheap point, like Wilgrove did, but it's only fair to call the lies as they pop up.

Tell that again when I have diarrhea :(

The best part of this statement is your name, which in my head sounds like diarrhea.

Yep. I know poo throwing. I can sense thrown poo is imminent.

So, you have Poo-Dar?

It's more of a psychic gift really.

Telepoothy. :)

Oy veh! Puniversal warfare!

Extra Scentsory Pooception?

He was just now actually awarded it. Not that his receiving it will make a bit of difference. China and the US will change when it becomes profitable to change, and not before.

That is absolutely true.

That's the train from the airport to Oslo. Will he drive from the city back to the airport, or take the train like he did when he arrived? I guess we'll see when he leaves. It's easy to fabricate bullshit to make a cheap point, like Wilgrove did, but it's only fair to call the lies as they pop up.

*sigh* I was trying to make a point about Al Gore's hypocrisy by pointing out that he does have a private aircraft, a house that should be in Hollywood and maybe one or two sports car. In the meantime he's asking us to change our lifestyle to save the planet and he won't do a damn thing beside buy "carbon credits" because I guess actually taking the first step towards change yourself is too much for Mr. Gore, so he's paying someone else to do it.

I find it kind of shocking that they couldn't find anyone more deserving to give the peace prize to. Giving it to Gore is a pretty far stretch.
It's a good way to poke a stick in the eye of America.

But, did anyone notice that there is a backlash developing? The International Journal of Climatology published an article (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) that essentially said "Gore is wrong". The accepted models don't fit reality and that while global warming is happening, CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Hopefully, we'll soon see widespread acceptance of the idea that man isn't causing global warming and we can start looking at ways to live with it, rather than futile efforts to stop it.

*sigh* I was trying to make a point about Al Gore's hypocrisy by pointing out that he does have a private aircraft, a house that should be in Hollywood and maybe one or two sports car. In the meantime he's asking us to change our lifestyle to save the planet and he won't do a damn thing beside buy "carbon credits" because I guess actually taking the first step towards change yourself is too much for Mr. Gore, so he's paying someone else to do it.
It's almost like paying himself... Doesn't he get paid by a company that invests in carbon credits?

*sigh* I was trying to make a point about Al Gore's hypocrisy by pointing out that he does have a private aircraft, a house that should be in Hollywood and maybe one or two sports car. In the meantime he's asking us to change our lifestyle to save the planet and he won't do a damn thing beside buy "carbon credits" because I guess actually taking the first step towards change yourself is too much for Mr. Gore, so he's paying someone else to do it.

Yes, but making shit up isn't the way to go. When you blatantly lie, it damages your credibility. Who says he's not changing his lifestyle? After all, his house in Nashville gets electricity through a program called Green Power Switch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801823.html) - I guess he has changed his lifestyle... And that fact leaves you with absolutely nothing, since you started with a lie and moved on to an unsubstantiated assumption.

And Hell, if it's so damned important for you to attack the messenger, why don't you do it properly? I mean, come on! Instead of being creative with the truth and making up fairy tales, attack Gore for having his luggage being driven into Oslo by way of limousine instead of taking it with him on the train. (Seeing as how that was a rather reasonable way to use the car the Nobel Institute sent for him, I would blame the institute and not Gore - but you should jump on it and use it for all it's worth.)

Next time, do some fucking research and don't make up lies, and you may be able to make a point. To quote Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try."

Yes, but making shit up isn't the way to go. When you blatantly lie, it damages your credibility. Who says he's not changing his lifestyle? After all, his house in Nashville gets electricity through a program called Green Power Switch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801823.html) - I guess he has changed his lifestyle... And that fact leaves you with absolutely nothing, since you started with a lie and moved on to an unsubstantiated assumption.
[/I]"

We buy "green" power, too. It's just a surcharge on the power bill, not a lifestyle change.

Now, if I used LESS power, that might be a lifestyle change. If I moved to a SMALLER house, that might be a lifestyle change. Simply paying a few dollars per kilowatt more for electricity isn't.

Old news is old, and accompanied with old discussion.

I find it kind of shocking that they couldn't find anyone more deserving to give the peace prize to. Giving it to Gore is a pretty far stretch.

They did find someone more deserving: Sheila Watt-Cloutier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Watt-Cloutier). But she isn't a rich, white, male; so....

It's a good way to poke a stick in the eye of America.

By awarding it to a USian? Your logic seems counterintuitive.

But, did anyone notice that there is a backlash developing? The International Journal of Climatology published an article (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) that essentially said "Gore is wrong". The accepted models don't fit reality and that while global warming is happening, CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Your link gives me an error message. Can you give me another source or a sample of the text so that I may find my own, please?

Hopefully, we'll soon see widespread acceptance of the idea that man isn't causing global warming and we can start looking at ways to live with it, rather than futile efforts to stop it.

This statement is so divorced from reality that I don't know where to begin.

They did find someone more deserving: Sheila Watt-Cloutier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Watt-Cloutier). But she isn't a rich, white, male; so....

In before someone points out that Mother Theresa was a poor, white, woman.

We buy "green" power, too. It's just a surcharge on the power bill, not a lifestyle change.

Now, if I used LESS power, that might be a lifestyle change. If I moved to a SMALLER house, that might be a lifestyle change. Simply paying a few dollars per kilowatt more for electricity isn't.
To start using only renewable energy may have a more positive effect than "only" using less. Of course, the best would be to do both.

Do you claim that Gore doesn't advocate switching to green, renewable energy as part of what he calls "lifestyle change"?
Old news is old, and accompanied with old discussion.

He only got it yesterday, and the ceremony continues today. New news is new, but accompanied with old discussion.

Your link gives me an error message. Can you give me another source or a sample of the text so that I may find my own, please?
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home, third article down, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

He only got it yesterday, and the ceremony continues today. New news is new, but accompanied with old discussion.

So am I horribly mistaken about remembering hearing about Gore winning the Nobel peace prize a few months ago?


Or can I predict the future?

So am I horribly mistaken about remembering hearing about Gore winning the Nobel peace prize a few months ago?
It was announced in october, but awarded yesterday. Much pomp and circumstance, new speeches, Kevin Spacey hosting the affair, music and fun tonight.

So no, not horribly mistaken, but not old news ;)

It was announced in october, but awarded yesterday. Much pomp and circumstance, new speeches, Kevin Spacey hosting the affair, music and fun tonight.

So no, not horribly mistaken, but not old news ;)

Dang, I was this close to being able to predict the future. :(

Stupid Al Gore.

Does NSG believe that the US will finally accept its global responsibility when it comes to pollution and emitting green house gases? I mean, even Australia has changed its approach at the Bali conference.America has, as you can see if you remove the Bush Administration from the equation. If I recall correctly, Lantos, Waxmann, and other congressmen sent a letter to de Boer at the Bali Conference to ignore the US delegation because it represents a position that will leave office along with its administration soon.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home, third article down, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

Has someone pointed out that it doesn't really say what Myrmi thinks it's saying yet? Because it's not.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home, third article down, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

And that says what he claims how?

And that says what he claims how?

It doesn't. I pointed that out already. Should we explain why it doesn't say that, or let him figure it out?

And that says what he claims how?

It only says what Myrmi claims it says if you don't read it. It's a sort of Schoedinger's Cat thing. His argument it dead, but if you don't look at it very closely you can't be sure.

*ducks flying poo* Hah! You think this is the first time I've had poo thrown at me? You are sady mistaken! :p

*telekinetically makes the poo swerve back in mid-air, splattering LG in the face*

It was announced in october, but awarded yesterday. Much pomp and circumstance, new speeches, Kevin Spacey hosting the affair, music and fun tonight.

So no, not horribly mistaken, but not old news ;)

Yeah, but there's nothing new to the story, except Kevin Spacy. The announcement of the winner was the noteworthy thing. The actual recieving of the award notsomuch.

We've already discussed everything from whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize is actually handed out in Oslo to further reasons why Fox news sucks.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540593&highlight=al+gore+peace+prize


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540981&highlight=al+gore+peace+prize

It only says what Myrmi claims it says if you don't read it. It's a sort of Schoedinger's Cat thing. His argument it dead, but if you don't look at it very closely you can't be sure.

*throws a dead cat at Ifreann*

Yeah, but there's nothing new to the story, except Kevin Spacy. The announcement of the winner was the noteworthy thing. The actual recieving of the award notsomuch.
It can be...

With the speeches (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lect_2007b.html) (both (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lect_2007c.html)) and all...

It can be...

With the speeches (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lect_2007b.html) (both (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lect_2007c.html)) and all...

Could have been added to the original thread. That's all I'm saying. It isn't gravedigging if you are adding something new and relevant to the thread. At least we wouldn't have to read the exact same posts some people made over a month ago in the last thread.

Then again, I am finding this poo fight very intriguing.

*loads poo canon*

And that says what he claims how?

Let's look at the abstract, since it's public. I've bought the article, but I doubt that I can reprint it...


We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

Here's the best open source commentary I can find that includes quotes on the article.

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

The point of the whole thing is that man made CO2 emissions are minuscule, when compared to other factors at work in climate change.

But, believe Al Gore, if you want, he's just wrong.

-snip-

And their research has been subjected to standard peer review, yes?

Let's look at the abstract, since it's public. I've bought the article, but I doubt that I can reprint it...
Why have you bought it when you can just read it at the site you linked to - for free?

5. Summary
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model
simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our
conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application
of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this
proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature
trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region
represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the
trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse
forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that
model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent
with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there
is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to
the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then
future projections of temperature change, as depicted in
the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around
the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric
trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates
heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article
demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between
surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature
trends warming faster than the surface. What
is new in this article is the determination of a very
robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at
each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several
equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations
which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete
and accurate observations and more realistic modelling
efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the
observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of
future climate based on these models be viewed with
much caution.


Here's the best open source commentary I can find that includes quotes on the article.
*Snip*
Too lazy to link to Dr. Singers blogg? (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html)


The point of the whole thing is that man made CO2 emissions are minuscule, when compared to other factors at work in climate change.

But, believe Al Gore, if you want, he's just wrong.
Why should we believe this study, as opposed to the others, and why shouldn't we play it safe?

You know, listening to the IPCC and doing something then having them be proven wrong is better than not listening to them and then having them be proven right.

Why should we believe this study, as opposed to the others, and why shouldn't we play it safe?


Playing it safe is one thing, but taking measures that could have a serious negative impact on the economies of various nations places them in a weaker position from which to actively fight global warming.

The problem with that study, Myrmi, is that it contradicts every other credible report, study, and so on and so forth on climate change. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any evidence that it has been peer-reviewed yet.

That does not mean we should ignore it, of course, but it should be taken in the proper context. Shouting about winning when the only proof of your position you have may possibly be wrong isn't exactly the best idea.

Playing it safe is one thing, but taking measures that could have a serious negative impact on the economies of various nations places them in a weaker position from which to actively fight global warming.

How so?

And what about the weaker nations that will suffer most from global climate change, if the worst case scenarios pan out? What about the lives at risk in those nations?

How so?

And what about the weaker nations that will suffer most from global climate change, if the worst case scenarios pan out? What about the lives at risk in those nations?

Worst case scenario comes into play: there's nothing that can be done. Sad truth there. We'll be too busy attempting to look after ourselves to help smaller, weaker nations.

The weaker nations can't be helped if the stronger nations don't remain strong. Limiting their effectiveness with punitive measures, however well-intentioned, can limit that strength, at least for the short term.

Say a strict emissions cap is enacted. Industry has to struggle to meet said cap, resulting in losses in revenue (needed to finance upgrades) and production (as resources have to be diverted to meet the new requirements). Eventually, new methods of production may be developed that make meeting the cap easier on productivity and revenue, but until that happens, the industrial sector will take a hit that will hamper our ability to produce.

This is not to say that measures shouldn't be enacted, of course. But the economic effects they may have can't simply be discounted out of hand.

The problem with that study, Myrmi, is that it contradicts every other credible report, study, and so on and so forth on climate change. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any evidence that it has been peer-reviewed yet.

That does not mean we should ignore it, of course, but it should be taken in the proper context. Shouting about winning when the only proof of your position you have may possibly be wrong isn't exactly the best idea.
What we've got is a peer reviewed article ( IJC (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home/ForAuthors.html) is a peer reviewed publication -- look it up), that presents it's data in a format that is reproducible by others, which claims an enormous contradiction in every other report that relies on models.

Simply put, if the observed data doesn't match the model, the model isn't any good. If we start to believe what "should" be, than what "is", then we've ignored at least a hundred years of science.

The proof of the claims in the article will come in future issues when the responses are published.

But for now, we can be content that it's an early nail in the coffin of man-made global warming.

Why have you bought it when you can just read it at the site you linked to - for free?

Not with my ability to click on links... How?

Besides, I pass the costs on to work, when they apply.


Why should we believe this study, as opposed to the others, and why shouldn't we play it safe?

You know, listening to the IPCC and doing something then having them be proven wrong is better than not listening to them and then having them be proven right.
Because the efforts to reduce non-pollutants like CO2 are likely to be very expensive and will divert the efforts from where they're needed. The efforts of science and business should be focused on what to do in a constantly warming climate.

What we've got is a peer reviewed article ( IJC (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home/ForAuthors.html) is a peer reviewed publication -- look it up), that presents it's data in a format that is reproducible by others, which claims an enormous contradiction in every other report that relies on models.

Simply put, if the observed data doesn't match the model, the model isn't any good. If we start to believe what "should" be, than what "is", then we've ignored at least a hundred years of science.

The proof of the claims in the article will come in future issues when the responses are published.

But for now, we can be content that it's an early nail in the coffin of man-made global warming.

And that last sentence is what shows why you're ignoring at least 100 years of science. Scientists, good ones anyway, don't go, hey, we finally got ONE study that says what we really want it say, let's toss those 100's of others. You do. Thanks for demonstrating so clearly the problem with your argument.

Next.

And that last sentence is what shows why you're ignoring at least 100 years of science. Scientists, good ones anyway, don't go, hey, we finally got ONE study that says what we really want it say, let's toss those 100's of others. You do. Thanks for demonstrating so clearly the problem with your argument.

Next.
Nice try, but up until now, all we have is a bunch of guys quoting what models say. They haven't reconciled the real world with what they are expecting to see. This paper does that. My point is that we learned to believe experimental data over predictions about the time the Wright brothers put a flying airplane together. They did that through meticulous testing and data collection. That is what this paper has done and that's what makes it a cut above the rest of the crowd.

The interesting part is always to read the objections in the journal's response section, though. That was what stirred up enough controversy in the great Georgia Tech Cold Fusion discovery to make the authors go back and re-examine their data and realize it was faulty. Same could still happen here.

But we do have the "one" juried paper that you wanted a while back that argued against man-made global warming. This isn't consensus building, it's science. When the facts are disproved, it's time to start over. A lot of people have made a lot of money from scaring the world, but it's time they started to look for another venue.

Nice try, but up until now, all we have is a bunch of guys quoting what models say. They haven't reconciled the real world with what they are expecting to see. This paper does that. My point is that we learned to believe experimental data over predictions about the time the Wright brothers put a flying airplane together. They did that through meticulous testing and data collection. That is what this paper has done and that's what makes it a cut above the rest of the crowd.

The interesting part is always to read the objections in the journal's response section, though. That was what stirred up enough controversy in the great Georgia Tech Cold Fusion discovery to make the authors go back and re-examine their data and realize it was faulty. Same could still happen here.

But we do have the "one" juried paper that you wanted a while back that argued against man-made global warming. This isn't consensus building, it's science. When the facts are disproved, it's time to start over. A lot of people have made a lot of money from scaring the world, but it's time they started to look for another venue.

Ah, yes, the only "real" science is the science that says what you wanted it to say even before you ever saw it. Probably coincidence that you agree with these guys. Clearly, you landed on the conclusion before anyone else in the field and you were just waiting for the slower crowd to catch up.

Why am I reminded of the Academy of Tabacco Studies?

The facts haven't been disproved. They've been disputed. No scientist worth his salt starts over the first time the "facts" are disputed. It would be moronic. If there is a dispute you do more testing. You've had your conclusion in hand the whole time and fully admit to only accepting one bit of scientific data over mountains of others.

But, hey, why change now? You had this conclusion when nothing supported. Why should you change your conclusion when now it's only the bulk of scientific data? Interestingly enough I seem to remember that you claimed science supported you the whole time. Interesting that now you're claiming it finally does.

Quotes heard in science labs around the world (insert different languages as necessary) - FINALLY something that might agree with what I've been claiming all along. Throw all that other crap out.