I hate to think this man Carlin is going to visit Fort Marcy Park soon

His demise will just be attributed to “natural causes.”

Global warming for democrats is a way to side step raising taxes directly on the public. By cap & trade they can make the large industrials look like the bad guys when your cost of living increases from the cost of taxation being passed down to you. As scams go, this is a good one.

Wait till heating your house costs go up three fold this winter. Even a stupid liberal will start bitching. Food will go sky high also, maybe then we will see some sense from the voters.

Grunt, have you read the 98 page report that looks at this topic on a scientific basis only? If you have not, then please don’t convolute your argument with websites that also have credibility issues like discover or real climate. Gavin, whoever that is on the real climate website says this on one of his posts, “In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations”.
Did you get that Grunt? They have not had one climate model that matches what has happened to our climate which means there is no way they will predict what will happen. I went to your recommended sites and they are very biased. Do you want to know why their models never work on predicting climate? They don’t take into account the effects of the sun! Why would they do that? Its only the largest source of heat for our planet!!?? Grunt, get educated, don’t drink the kool-aid of the left and read the 98 page report before giving me junk science websites.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist. EPA says no one at the agency solicited the report. And Carlin appears to have taken up the global warming topic largely as a hobby on his own time. In fact, a NASA climatologist has called the report–whose existence was first publicized last week by the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)–”a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at.”

I don’t know, do you?

They have not had one climate model that matches what has happened to our climate which means there is no way they will predict what will happen. I went to your recommended sites and they are very biased. Do you want to know why their models never work on predicting climate? They don’t take into account the effects of the sun!

Please reference page 17 of the IPCC’s Clmate Change Synthesis Report 2007. Figure 2.4 clearly shows that the effects of solar irradiance are taken into account.

Simulations are by there very nature imperfect (they are still useful). A more certain predictive tool of science is an extrapolation of data from observable trends. The trends cited in this and other reports are quantitative observations of nature whose methodologies are well documented and accepted within the scientific community.

Is that NASA climatologist James Hansen, the guy who manipulates the data in order to get the results he desires?

This quote from the Discover article that I mentioned earlier is illuminating.

“When you’re covering climate change, you don’t get somebody from a deep ecology group to tell you we’re near the end of the world and then somebody from the Competitive Enterprise Institute who’s going to tell you carbon dioxide is a fertilizer while forgetting about ocean acidification. If you do that, the two lowest-probability outcomes get most of the time in the media and you get this dumbed-down debate. It’s bipolar, and that’s not how system science works. There are multiple potential outcomes. What we do is whittle out the relative likelihood of each of these outcomes so we can make a value judgment about whether or not the risks are adequate to move forward. Risk is what can happen, multiplied by the probability of its happening. That’s what we call an objective or scientific assessment. We try to make the risk aspects clear and then leave the risk management where it properly belongs, which is out among the public and in the political world.”

Hansen is an alarmist on one side of this “bipolar” debate. People like Carlin and Monckton are deniers on the other side. Both of these extreme positions devalue the credibility of the scientific process responsible for determining extent of the danger attributed to climate change.

I’m sorry but the quote is from Steven Schneider a Stanford University Climatologist.

The man ripping Carlin’s report is Gavin Schmidt a NASA climatologist.

Sorry about the double post.

If he/she has some info to back up their claim, I would like to hear it.

I believe Gavin listed his objections on RealClimate.

Look at the science people! The trend is cooling and the theory of global warming is a balnket of green house gases that cause the planet to warm. Lie all you want, the facts are the facts. Glabal warming is a scam, not a democrat or republican thing.

Please provide documentation for your claim that the planet is cooling. The data presented by the IPCC in the Synthesis report disagrees with your assertion.

Cool some data to play with.

Here are some data sets from NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Notice that the sample size you presented is relatively small. Assuming you are familiar with statistics you know that larger sample sizes produce more valid results.

An interesting exercise here is to input the data into Excel and place a best fit line on a line graph produced from that data. The best fit line will allow you to extrapolate and predict the trends from that data set.

Using the larger sample size you can see (even without Excel) that global temperatures are rising despite anomylous data caused by short term weather patterns or other natural phenomena.

“Please reference page 17 of the IPCC’s Clmate Change Synthesis Report 2007. Figure 2.4 clearly shows that the effects of solar irradiance are taken into account.”

Where did they get this info from? This is based on what? How did they weight the formula into finding what percent effect that this result came from?

Grunt, I tell you what. I will look into what you are saying and see if there is not a hidden agenda I believe there is and you should look into where they got their raw data to come to the conclusions they did. If science is what you are interested in, then you would have changed my mind. We bot have biases.

I hate to think this man Carlin is going to visit Fort Marcy Park soon,O bummers goons make Clintons people look like preschoolers.