It won't hit MSM headlines and the "scientists" that enjoy being "the consensus" will simply disparage these guys.

It's not as if there is real opposition to what is already "settled science," right? Do these people really think there are legitimate concerns regarding what many claim to know about our climate?

We know everything. Anyone who disagrees with that is just being silly.

*If you like the comments, check out the articles.

bass...

I normally agree with you, but I find myself having to set you straight on something...

 "I hope they really dont expect the UN and the IPCC will give up any hope of collecting the millions of dollars that this cash cow is providing for them"

I would have used the term BILLIONS of dollars.

Picky, ain't I?

"Abstain from McCain"

It's interesting that you don't mention thickening glaciers . . .

as in the glaciers are growing . . .

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Gary,

Yes, yes, yes!!! I LIKE it! ns

If it ends, it will be quietly just like the Ice Age scare of the 70s.  You have listed all the logical responses of what normal people who have nothing to profit from an agenda would do.  The problem is there are multiple agendas.  I suspect very strongly that Al Gore pushed the whole thing to take the stigma away from nuclear power in the first place (Gore was a primary supporter of nuke power, then he quietly distanced himself).  His plan A flopped so he's going with plan B to make a profit off the alternative energy. 

Let's add to that the agenda of Europe and Japan to get away from the Arabs supplying their energy, they didn't have the guts to come out and say they were going to become energy independent lest they raise the wrath of their oil suppliers who would potentially retaliate by either jacking up the prices to take as much money from them as possible or alternately, drop the price of oil so that it would never be economically possible to use alternate energy.  The Europeans and Japanese wanted out of suppling money to terrorist funding using oil money. The Arabs weren't stupid, they saw right through the Kyoto nonsense and kept the price of oil low throughout the Clinton Admin in the hopes that the disinsentive use alternate energy would cause everyone to give up. Clinton didn't sign the Kyoto treaty because he knew under stable oil prices there was no economic justification for the US to hike it's own energy prices to achieve energy independence and he knew the environmental lobby would fight him tooth and nail if he were to advocate nuclear which was the logical choice using the breeder reactor as France does.  Well, for a while it worked until the Iranians got greedy, now the plan is to suck as much money as possible out of the West before the gravey train is over or enough financial pain has been meeted out so the West cries uncle. 

Of course the Europeans, being the gutless wonders they are, came up with the carbon credit scam to offset the disruption to the third world this whole change would create.  Carbon credits are supposed to be used to fund energy projects in the third world.  They counted on the US joining the scam in order to fund the bulk of the energy projects, and it never happened.  You see the Europeans and Japanese knowing their demographic decline was coming were counting on 2012 to save them from doing anything thus dumping the whole load on the US.  Please note that the 1990 and 2012 dates coincidentally match the projected population curves of the Europeans and Japanese. 

It was a scam from beginning to end, and the US tax payer was the mark to pick up the tab. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Distortion again. You avoided a few statements in your link. "About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940." There was a warming from about 1910's till the late 30's.  (Prior to that was a cool trend.) This is an interensting trend. Seems our use of fossil fuels was stagnant due to something you don't know about. The depression. You  can't blame that rise on increasing fuel usage.

Then a cooling followed from the 50's to late 70's.. Then a warming from the late 70's and we may be out of that phase.

Giles did you notice this nonsense chart on your link. Near the bottom. Here. Looks like satellite and surface temps don't match.

Then Giles again gives us that wonderful link at Col Ed.

 Which shows the world is warmer than the mean temps of from 1951- 80. That known cool period.

The next AGW magic that will be used to scare people. A chart showing how much warmer it is now than during the plistocene.

Has your post been sufficiently Hansenized?

How many ways can we distort?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Giles, you are a hoot!

your references: 

1. Climate Realists agreee that it has gotten warmer over the last century.  They differ with the alarmists over the extent of human contribution and the net potential of future increases in CO2 to contribute to global warming.  The empirical science supports this view.   The models support the alarmists.  My money is on the empirical science, and hence, the realists.

2.  Again you reference the same GISS dasta as you did in an earlier post.  The reference is Dr. James E. Hansen and his disciples at NASA.  In your previous post you included a reference showing that NASA/GISS is the only track of 4 plotted that shows temperatures over the last decade have remained within the envelope of the IPCC predictions.  The rest all say IPCC is in error.  This implies the models used by both Hansen and the IPCC are in error.  It also suggests the most recent data being published by GISS is discrepant from everyone else including the respected Hadley Center in the UK.  Why do you suppose this is?

 3.  Since when is President Bush a scientist?  You don't agree with him about anything else and have generally regarded him as a dolt in the rare posts where you've mentioned him in the past. 

The Climate Alarmists are beginning to lose the Scientific debate and in some very significant ways.  I think their errors are blatantly obvious.  Everytime I try to discuss these problems in an intelligent way with kool-aid drinkers like you, all I get are a flurry of links back to NASA/GISS, Columbia University, realclimate.org and Dr. J. E. Hansen.  These are all the same few people, Hansen and his team at NASA ..... and they are wrong.

I will even tell you how they are wrong:  (1)  They have ignored the role that water vapor transport in the atmosphere plays in heat transfer.  This is called convection, a heat transfer mechanism that is orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation.  (2)  They have failed to correctly account for the role of clouds in controlling albedo. (3) They initially and incorrectly ignored variability in solar output, an error they have since addressed, but I believe inadequately.

The alarmists postulated that the Beer-Lambert law did not apply because of 'positive feedbacks' and built this into their models.  The latest satellite data say they goofed, agreeing with what the empirical paleoclimate data says.

My money says you will debate none of this because you lack the critical thinking skills to do so, and simply publish another flurry of links to those erroneous scientists at realclimate.org.