First, this “report” belongs under Politics, not science.

Secondly, while M. Malkin and her fans, the WUWT armchair scientists, and the like have been trying to make hay with this issue, the substance of the report is of dubious value and the fans of this type of stuff are really going out on a limb.

For example, cited several times in this report is the astrologer Theodor Landscheidt. Sorry, but serious modern scientific articles don’t base their work on the proposals of astrologers!

Secondly is the heavy use of the political (as in, not scientific) web sites such as WUWT, and the proclivity of the report to use the non-peer reviewed posts on such blogs, rather than actual peer-reviewed papers in the geophysical and general science journals. Indeed, the report seems to go out of its way to avoid the actual scientific literature.

Additionally, the report makes references to such questionable sources such as the one and only “Lord” Monckton and his notorious letter to the APS forum, which was openly mocked here on LGF.

In fact, the authors of that report went through quite a selection of propaganda sources such as the discredited Fred Singer, the Heartland Institute and the like.

As such, the report results in being nothing more than a collection of the various arguments from the “denier” camp. It is not a scientific document and would be laughed out of any serious scientific process such as a true peer-review.

Indeed, the authors of the report have conducted themselves in a most unprofessional manner.

So all of you who want to go and up-ding this report (and it has been posted several times now at LGF), note that you are buying into a document that is pseudo-scientific, and just plain wrong.

re: #1 freetoken

And the IPCC report is the “be all, end all?

re: #2 BignJames

Even the IPCC is dialing back on the amount of global warming they expect. The “peer reviewed” rubbish is exactly that, rubbish. The AGW thinks that the only serious “peer reviewed” journals are the ones that agree with them and all the others are not serious or “peer reviewed”. I note in passing the earlier spinoff about the Bentham journals. Nobody denies climate change. Climates change. Nobody denies that people can have something to do with it. Overgrazing and other poor land management practices have created increased desert areas and are partially responsible for the “Big Dry”. But given the fact that the AGW models do not work in forward prediction mode, I have very serious doubt as to their validity. Call that being a denier if you wish. I call it being a scientist. Evidence->Hypothesis->Model->Prediction->Evidence->Better Hypothesis->Better Model->Prediction->Evidence etc. Right now, AGW is stuck in the rut where their evidence does not agree with the predictions of their model. The US temperature record of the last 100+ years is more than explained by a simple model with only the PDO and AMO in it. It has a non parametric correlation with the observed temperatures of .92 and a r-squared of .85 CO2 concentrations have a correlation of 0.66 with an r-squared of 0.43 (e.g. poor) For the past 10 years it has been -0.14 with an r-squared of 0.02 (noise) Source: US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow As can be seen by the email comments that were sent about the original paper in discussion on this post, if you did not follow the company line, you had problems. This also extends to some “peer reviewed” publications and to grant money. If the government offered grants to prove that there were little green cats on mars, somebody would “study” it and conclude there were, but more study is warranted on the topic. That is, we want more grant money.

I am sorry, but I do not care to hand my future over to a failed divinity school student, a rubbish filmmaker, and a bunch of political hacks.

re: #3 Shr_Nfr

So what is the best way to get Congress to stop the “Cap and Trade” legislation and to help the idiots who are buying in to the global warming scare and allowing this corrupt legislation to even be contemplated?

Our economic future seems to be hanging in the balance and I am so tired of the panic do-it-now pressure with the general public doing nothing to stop any of it.

freetoken,man made global warming, or climate change is pseudo-scientific, and just plain wrong.

re: #4 Right mind left

Yell at your congresscritters. Mine are a lost cause, I have Kennedy and Lurch in the Senate and Barney in the house. Just simply say that there is no way you will support them financially or vote for them if they voted for or will vote for this bill. Getting people to understand the science and/or lack thereof is an up-hill battle, especially with the moonbats. Letting them know about the Alvarez study in Spain that showed that Spain spent $700,000 per new “green job” created and lost 2.2 jobs per job created will help the economic argument.

re: #5 twh

The CO2 concentrations and the temperatures both went up since about 1970 to about 2000. When that happens, it is science to make a hypothesis that explains the observation, and to produce a model that is based on that hypothesis. You run the model both on ex ante data from earlier times and forward from present observations. When the ex ante results do not agree with the historically observed results, and the future does not agree with the predictions, you back off and ask what could be wrong. Sometimes it is the whole hypothesis. The sun rotating around the earth explains why the sun comes up in the morning and sets at night. You can form a model from that. The test historically was the movement of the planets in the sky. The retrograde movements were not predicted by the model. They adjusted the model by making the planets move around little central points that moved around the earth. Better agreement, but still not good enough. They then had them revolve in little circles whose center revolved in a little circle which then revolved around the earth. Still not good enough. Finally Kepler came along and the rest is, as they say, history. I have no problem with people creating a hypothesis. I have a number of them in a number of fields. In Egyptology, it is recorded that Alexander the Great was preserved in “white honey”. My hypothesis is that it was not honey per se, but a supersaturated pure sugar solution. That would have been clear, and might have been called honey since it was sweet. Such a solution preserves things. The osmotic pressure of the hydrophilic sugar solution is such that it kills off living cells by dessicating them. Alcohol does much the same. I could create a model out of this by creating a super-saturated sucrose solution and throwing a pork chop into it and then watching to see if it decayed. I have not bothered, but I perhaps will at some point just for the fun of it. I note in passing that if you wish to ferment honey, you must water it down. Yeast will not grow in a normal solution of it. Also that is why your bottle of Karo syrup or maple syrup does not get moldy.

The AGW hypothesis of CO2 as a major driver of temperature change or climate change does a nose plant when tested against data. Other man made effects such as the increase in the amount of desert in Africa due to overgrazing and the potential for that to have effects on the tropical weather patterns due to dust being blown off the continent westward are probably on firmer footing. Certainly the overgrazing is.