I'm not sure Rotten understands "margin of error" in scientific calculations. A number of .09 C/decade is very hard to validate because the accuracy of each temperature  measurement is only within few tenths of a degree.

Quantitative statements about temperature are very hard to validate.  The NRC Report on Surface Temperature Reconstruction did yield some trends. 

1000 (identified by some as the "Medieval Warm Period") and a relatively cold period (or "Little Ice Age") centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

So we cooled until about 1850 and then began to warm.  The 1930s were very hot. Possibly hotter than now. (Again exact measurments are very problematic). The period from 1940 to 1975 was a cool period.

In fact Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970 said

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

However since 1975 there has been a warming trend. .

Allan, they have no technical background.

And what is Noel Sheppard's technical background again?

I didn't know that Rotten.  You cannot build scientific theory by consensus.

By the way, I also believe in man made global warming. Every time I light I match, I have just warmed the earth. My contribution is not measurable.  

Whether the rest of man's combined contributions is measurable is far from a settled issue.

you rely so heavily on is a false construct, just like the entire AGW scam.

"The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different....story."

"...very few scientists were actually directly involved in the creation and review of any given chapter of this critical Summary, and dissenting opinions were not only not included, but seemingly ignored."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/what-media-won-t-tell-you-about-u-n-climate-panel

But the ones we hear so much about in the media ALL advocate sweeping changes to our socio-economic structure as a means of solving problems they have yet to prove even exist.

They've proven the problem exists.  Glaciers are melting, the globe is warming, sea levels are rising.  The issue now is "what do we do about it?"  The scientific argument over the existence and causes of global warming was settled years ago and deniers lost.

I would like nothing better than if everyone could put aside their politics and get down to discovering what is actual fact from that which is mere demagoguery. 

That's already been done.

But, until the Algores of the world stop incorrectly insisting that "the debate is over"...

If you look in the peer-reviewed literature, there is no debate over the causes of global warming.  Denier arguments may flourish in forums like this but they don't survive when subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of professional scientific publication.  The debate IS over because there's simply no evidence supporting the denier position.

In big debates like this,I like to look at who will ultimately win or lose.For the alarmists to win we would literally have to stop driving ALL cars and use NO electricity.People will never stand for this.If Al Gore truly believes his dire predictions,he should be at ground breaking ceremonies for nuclear power plants.Alarmists LOSE !

Buh-bye, RottenHam.   It's been....interesting.

Actually none of them have been discredited, you stating so does not make it so. I know what they say because I actually read them. These parlor tricks may work with other Global Warming Liars such as yourself but not with me. The only waste of time is you have been handed you your ass on this forum and you continue to post. You cannot dispute the Peer-reviewed papers in any relevant context so you just make empty statements. Liars such as yourself simply endlessly respond thinking that if they have the last word they win but it doesn't work that way. Your ramblings have been seen for what they are.

There is no overwhelming majority:

"Consensus":

"The debate on global warming is over." - Al Gore, NYU, 2006

"Let's
be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which
means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to
the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus..."
- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears (Hudson Institute)

QUOTE (Hudson Institute)

A
new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500
scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of
current man-made global warming scares.

“Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over (PDF) (Christopher Monckton)
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) (Heartland Institute)

QUOTE (Heartland Institute)

A
survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined
there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming
period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and
whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial.
Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the
survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent)
disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree
we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now.

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)

QUOTE (Benny Peiser)

The
results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially
falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly
endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question
the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the
observed warming over the last 50 years"

Scientists Against Man-Made Global Warming (Wikipedia)
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)

QUOTE (DailyTech)

Medical
researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research.
Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all
papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on
climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the
consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the
consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.
However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the
largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or
reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." In fact of all
papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single
one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic
results.

Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. (summa cum laude) Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

Deceased:

August
H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of
Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)

Organizations Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

AccuWeather, USA
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA (Noncommittal)
American Policy Center, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
FAEC - Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, Argentina
Fraser Institute, Canada
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center, USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Science and Public Policy Institute, USA
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Say whaaaa?  The ocean is saltier because of AGW???  By claiming both they essentially admit they don't have clue as to what determines the salinity of the ocean.   Not being a scientist, I can only speculate as to what the reasons might be, but one thing I do know is you can't have it both ways.  Umm, how about it's raining and snowing alot on land, I believe they call it the hydrologic cycle? http://www.wasa.gov.tt/images/hydrologic_cycle.gif   It would stand to reason that if all precipitation was in the form of rain, virtually all of the water evaporated from the ocean that fell on land would form a balance by flowing back into the oceans via the rivers.  So this leaves us essentially one variable that would account for saltier water, i.e. snow pack.  Any accumulation of snow not melting means that water which evaporated from the ocean is not coming back to it from the river.  Since the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are gaining mass that means the satellite observations of the ocean levels (without the false correction added by the IPCC) must in fact fall.  The French scientist already has debunked/exposed the ocean rising claim by the IPCC.  The ocean levels actually have fallen, not risen, according to the satellite measurements.

dscott's postulate:  The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.