Alzo,
You have failed to understand what I was saying above just as you failed to quote the Tung study correctly, or even the Oreskes wiki honestly. Do you have a fundamental problem with comprehension?

I was saying I was sorry FOR YOU not apologizing to you! Not only do the 928 peer reviewed studies REMAIN CREDIBLE despite your attempted criticism, they comprise the very empirical data — VERIFIABLE FACTS — that you said would change your mind. But no, you didn’t really mean that, did you?

More scientists than the climatologists have studied these studies, and so we have a letter of 11 thousand scientific signatures demanding the Bush administration take action.

So, at the risk of being repetitious, the 928 peer reviewed reports by climatologists confirming man-made Global Warming over 20 years is just fine with my worldview, how is yours doing? ;-)

Now, on the threat to ecologies we are witnessing right now…

I said: "In all, the researchers say that global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied."
You said: “A natural warming would produce this too...”

The problem for you is that you deny the earth is warming. “What a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”.

Either all those plant, animal, and insect species are having their timing thrown out of whack by higher temperatures or not. Alzo, this is serious. There are caterpillar and tree leaf systems that are being thrown out. The caterpillars cannot feed on the spring shoots soon enough, and the decreased moths in future seasons will throw out the entire food chain of North American birds and all sorts of other impacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Ecosystems

So here’s the thing…

Either you were lying about temperatures being static to protect your solar driver theory — so we can’t believe a single word you are saying (again) — or temperatures ARE INDEED rising which is devastating to your solar hypothesis. Which is it?

"you failed to quote the Tung study correctly"
Actually I was looking more at their results than their "beliefs". The results indicate that the Earth is particularly sensitive to solar irradiance changes. What they "believe" isn't actually relevant.

"On December 3, 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes from the University of California analysed 928 scientific papers that dealt with "climate change", and that had been published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. Not one of these 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position, even though they may have disagreed in minor details."
She musn't have looked too hard. After a very quick search using Google Scholar I came up with a paper that disagreed with the consensus opion.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/CRpaperACTUALNov01.pdf

There are probably many others. The whole idea of the Oreskes' paper isn't even scientific as it is such a subjective topic. I'm surprised it was accepted in any credible publication.

"The problem for you is that you deny the earth is warming"
I don't deny that the earth has warmed about 0.6C since 1880. I do deny that the warming is continuing, as it hasn't since 2000. I also question how much of a role CO2 plays.

Never fear though "Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday."
Should be fun to watch and when it doesn't eventuate they will change it to 2019, and so on.
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=global-warming-will-step&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

Also black carbon rears its ugly head again. Seems it may be responsible for a lot of that artic/Greenland warming in the 1930's.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm

Looks like Lindzen's Iris effect isn't dead yet either. Who would have thought large negative feedbacks could occur in a stable climate system? If only the GCM's contained some (any).
“To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent,” Spencer said.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/14/the-iris-opens-again/

Your Tung “CO2 belief v solar science” dichotomy is false. They “believe” as scientists that it was the CO2 THAT INCREASED THE 11 year solar cycle EFFECT! You can’t claim the study proves enormous sensitivity to the sun, because it proves exactly the opposite.

Similar problems with your ability to read come up with the “paper” you quote to challenge Oreskes… in that you obviously didn’t comprehend the last lines of their abstract.

“The purpose of such a limited review of the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement. Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate.”

Not only that, none of them were climatologists and all have links to Big oil!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_soon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso
was funded by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
who was funded by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Kirill Kondratyev is selling his integrity to this group as well, for peanuts really. It seems $100 thousand can do a lot.
http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

And the last author works for these guys. http://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Every last one of them are funded by Big oil. Nice study! ;-)

In case this is sounding paranoid, lets have a quick look at one of the most conservative scientific groups on earth.
“The Royal Society, is a learned society for science that was founded in 1660 and claims to be the oldest such society still in existence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Society

Surely this group does not believe in “Conspiracy theories”? So what are their thoughts on the so called “Debate”?

“On September 4, 2006, Bob Ward, the Senior Manager for Policy Communication at the Royal Society, wrote to Nick Thomas, the director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil in the UK. The Royal Society, which had Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, is the oldest and most prestigious scientific society in the world - and it's also deeply conservative. Mr. Ward asked why ExxonMobil paid millions of dollars to groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Such a strongly worded letter is very unusual for the Royal Society.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1938551.htm

You wanted evidence? There it is.

"They “believe” as scientists that it was the CO2 THAT INCREASED THE 11 year solar cycle EFFECT!"
Not in the paper I quoted, you're reading the wrong one again. They "believe" ommmm....just the results are interesting, not their beliefs.

"Similar problems with your ability to read come up with the “paper” you quote to challenge Oreskes… in that you obviously didn’t comprehend the last lines of their abstract."
So this paper falls into the "supporters" basket too? No wonder she didn't find any dissenting papers.
"Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible."
Pretty hard to interpret that in any other way.

"Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."
I think you'll find they are dismissing CO2 but remain open to other anthropogenic influences (as I do) like land use changes and aerosols (like black carbon ;)

"You wanted evidence?"
Sure did...still waiting. I don't think you will be able to provide me with any of note. Just more repetition and conspiracy theories.

"The caterpillars cannot feed on the spring shoots soon enough, and the decreased moths in future seasons..."
I notice that all the alarmist's dire predictions are always future based, just like the old telephone psychics. Alarmists also like to find "big oil" conspiracies everywhere.

Alzo tries to dodge the inconvenient facts by referring to his preferred paper by those authors, not the “inconvenient truth” of the other papers by the same author. Nice try Alzo, but you’re the master of dodging inconvenient TRUTHS aren’t you?

Like the truth that the “paper” you quote was written by fossil fuel backed nutters. Oreskes only quotes serious papers.

The ecosystem climate impacts are happening now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Ecological_productivity
Temperatures are still up.

It’s not the sun.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/

Point 6 here
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

ABC Science show here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

(I’ve already quoted all these, but nothing will dissuade Alzo from his BELIEFS).

There is no paper that explains the vast discrepancies between solar activity and temperature. Alzo just believes that we will find such a mechanism one day, rather than accepting the 928 CLIMATOLOGISTS that already know what’s going on. I guess some people just find Global Warming inconvenient after all. Do you work for King Coal Alzo?

Don’t waste your time quoting any argument by Richard Lindzen because:-
1. We got to see his argument style on the “Swindle” already, once was enough
2. While a qualified Atmospheric Physicist, he’s still not a Climatologist
3. He’s debunked here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/

Alzo, I’m actually getting bored of this. I only started it because I was so cranky with the documentary and Plimer’s silly misinformed and tricky rant afterwards. You make out you have serious papers to quote, but are only waving your cap gun and firing blanks. I don’t have time to continually debunk all the crud you keep throwing our way.

I trust that newcomers to the list will see through your rubbish, and at least check Wikipedia on the so called “papers” and “experts” you regurgitate so often.

Don’t throw me any more “data” you seem to find convincing — using the “9/11 Conspiracy strategy” of trying to create debate where there is none. All your “data” has already been addressed by the REAL EXPERTS — the climatologists. You just don’t want to read it.

Last chance — is there a REAL climatologist that disagrees with AGW or not?

STEVE MCINTYRE BLOWS THE LID ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://technorati.com/blogs/www.climateaudit.org