Gawwwd, the yanks are now asking ..... "How did we solve the global warming problem in the 1930's?" .... now that Hansen's claim that 1998 was the US of A's hottest year on record ETC ETC ETC .... has been debunked and it is 1934 along with 5 of the 10 hottest years now being in the nineteen thirties.

Snowbird and Kieran,
did it EVER occur to you to ask some REAL climatologists before blurting out your 'stuff'? Go to Real climate and check next time before regurgitating this rubbish. It was a dishonest use of the data, and tried to present American statistics as if they somehow disproved the whole Global picture. The lead story at Real Climate is 1934 and all that. Keep up.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

As for "certainty" in any of this, try to follow the lead story on Grist today. Maybe you are focusing too much on the wrong questions and not asking the most important and basic questions to begin with.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/14/165012/828

"Oreskes only quotes serious papers."
Must have missed this parameter in her paper.

"Point 6 here"
The John Ray Initiative - connecting Environment, Science and Christianity? Because everyone needs to have faith.

"ABC Science show here"
From the man who played Doctor Who...for four months.

"rather than accepting the 928 CLIMATOLOGISTS"
That's 180!!

"Don’t waste your time quoting any argument by Richard Lindzen because:-"
1. We got to see his argument style on the “Swindle” already"
I thought he was quite good...

"2. While a qualified Atmospheric Physicist, he’s still not a Climatologist"
Maybe why he isn't hung up on dodgy computer models.

"3. He’s debunked here"
Some debunking there...of an article he wrote in the Wall St Journal, not any of his actual science. Roy Spencer's new paper actually finds some pretty strong evidence to support Lindzen.
"The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization."
Spencer also says
"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"
Which would make it a non-event.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL029698.shtml

"Alzo, I’m actually getting bored of this. I only started it because I was so cranky "
Please stop, getting cranky is bad for one's health.

"STEVE MCINTYRE BLOWS THE LID ON CLIMATE CHANGE."
Global Warming just got a little less global. The USA temperature record now shows no ongoing trend of warming for the late 20th century, rather a cyclical trend where it was hotter in the 1930s. A similar pattern occurs in the Chinese temperature record. One would assume the USA temperature record is one of the most reliable in the world, doesn't leave you with a great deal of confidence in the rest. Been a bad week for AGW.

"did it EVER occur to you to ask some REAL climatologists before blurting out your 'stuff'? Go to Real climate"
The home of Mike "the broken hockeystick" Mann and Gavin "compuer says" Scmidt.

Logic of Climate change!!

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6633374?source=email

Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit.org website is down because it cannot handle the traffic.

Hansen and all the other greenhouser alarmists including Al Gore, over and over have said that you cannot argue with their data which is presented as fact ....i.e. that the majority of the 10 hottest years in the US of A have occurred since 1990. Now that this Papal decree has been proved to be incorrect it is being CONVENIENTLY buried, ignored and treated by Hansen as insignificant and not really that important. If this is the case, (and with the understanding that there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the warming trend,) one then wonders why it was ever important before.

Within this thread I must confess that I've tended to perceive the bigger picture issues like the solar/cosmic influence where we just see the climate changes back and forth. from mini-ice age to mini-heat wave. I have also dwelt on very serious relevant problems at the core of science that filter down through other branches such as climate science. e.g. If we have known for forty plus years that the intrinsic redshift of galaxies is quantized and thus spelling the end of the big bang hypothesis, why do we still have NASA promoting and only funding psudo-science people who support these old faked up, gravity-only, closed cosmological models that simply thrive on absurdity after absurdity? Like as one particular latter day Galileo has said, "After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility."

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is one such psudo-scientist with diminished integrity who is more concerned with invented fictional entities. This blind trust ultimately relates to the worship mindset where the desire to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the love to find out and gain understanding.

Kieran, you crack me up. Your smugness is rich coming from someone that believes the sun runs on electricity!

Alzo, the JRI piece was from the head of the IPCC to a Christian audience, that’s all. He’s still a scientist, and it’s still science.

You repeat the mantra that all climatologists are hung up on the one computer model. Your spin portrays a mythical climate meeting where they all became hoodwinked by the one computer model.

Readers, if you choose to believe Alzo you are only deluding yourself. Alzo, go and spend some time with real climatologists. See what they are measuring, the questions they ask, and why. You will find that scientific scepticism is alive and well. Every scientist with half an ounce of ambition or career planning wants to establish his or her name by discovering something new. The premise of Plimer’s article is just plain false!

On the Hockey-stick graph: the real reason the Medieval warm period was abandoned was because scientific scepticism is alive and well. If they had KEPT the warm period, THAT would have been a sign of consensus-trance taking over. But tree rings, ice-cores, and countless other data sets have disproved global warming then. It was a purely LOCAL weather phenomena, not a GLOBAL climate parameter. Learn the difference! The hockey-stick is true, pure and simple. The science advanced since that old graph was developed 20 odd years ago.

Scientists are sceptical and fiercely independent. You can’t get your head around the fact that multiple disciplines and very sceptical scientists are all coming to similar conclusions from DIFFERENT data sets. So go ahead, believe your myth of the ONE computer model that deceived the world. (LOL!)

There are cranks that disagree. You can find ANYTHING on the net if you want to. These cranks “make their name” (and money) by appealing to the crass underbelly of the anti-environmentalist — such as yourself — and selling books, and getting the occasional grant from big oil. But they are wrong. You just don't like the legitimate peer review process.