wrote:GCMs (computer climate models) do not validate a hypothesis. It takes physically observed hard data to validate the greenhouse hypothesis, and this is lacking today.

Baloney. To validate a hypothesis one takes the measured data and compares them to the results of calculations incorporating the relevant physics. This is exactly what has been done. You could claim that the models are not good enough yet, and I would agree that more needs to be done to make the results more accurate. But you misunderstand the process and the result.

Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, is involved in day-to-day operations.

Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain.

Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to leave the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries. Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions.

Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, which represents only one industry among many that positively dwarf the media economically, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.

>And as we all know, there are no political agendas at think tanks.

The NAS was set up with extremely elaborate protections to avoid having a political agenda. If you would actually look at their website, you could find about about this, and the record of the NAS in studying other topics.

For example, here's where you can find out about conflicts of interest:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html

And here's an overview:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/faq1.html

So again: here we are with a disagreement on the science of climate change. The science, not the politics. On the one hand the organization set up by Lincoln to give Congress and the American people the best possible scientific advice.

On the other hand we have an anonymous clown with a keyboard and an Internet account.

I again confess, I don't find this a hard call.

"That is unethical journalism and is the same torment that the conservative portions of Congress are throwing at the American people. If you want to complain about transparency, you better be transparent."

That isn't Journalism, it is Journalsim.

If you think this is unethical, take a look at the election coverage!

This!

Is!

Salon!

You're right, and in theory I love your context.......or do I? .

Ahhhhh, lets see:

The World Trade Center bombings (1 & 2), Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, Bombings in London, Madrid, Spain………How much "proof" do you need?

Shall I go on? (I can you know, for pages). These are actual events where PEOPLE have been murdered by Islamic terrorists.......These are UNNATURAL deaths....cause and effect, get the difference? These are not "theories" or "hypothesis"..... these are people; mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, who are DEAD.

We could open another entire page regarding that subject……but I had to stop you there…engage your brain before you open your mouth, (or type with your fingers).

Please, try to stay on topic?

wrote:For those who want evidence that statistcally the temperature over the past 10 years has been stable, check the Kesten C. Green and J Scott Armstrong paper “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” Energy and Environment 18, 7/8, 2007 and compare the two charts.

What charts? Showing temperatures?

That paper concludes that the IPCC report is not good enough at forecasting to be useful for policy decisions. It does not demonstrate that the temperature has not increased in the last decade. I am more than a little doubtful about this paper, as it seems mostly a rehash of obvious difficulties with forecasting and random statements by those objecting to the use of climate models, but not having investigated it in detail, I will say no more.

The conclusion of the paper:

To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to prepare forecasts of (1) temperature changes, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible proposed policy changes. To justify policy changes based on climate change, policy makers need scientific forecasts for all three forecasting problems. If governments implement policy changes without such justification, they are likely to cause harm. We have shown that failure occurs with the first forecasting problem: predicting temperature over the long term. Specifically, we have been unable to find a scientific forecast to support the currently widespread belief in “global warming.” Climate is complex and there is much uncertainty about causal relationships and data. Prior research on forecasting suggests that in such situations a naïve (no change) forecast would be superior to current predictions. Note that recommending the naïve forecast does not mean that we believe that climate will not change. It means that we are not convinced that current knowledge about climate is sufficient to make useful long-term forecasts about climate. Policy proposals should be assessed on that basis.

Nothing about temperatures in the last decade.