A Prediction Coming True?

Independent?…not when the funding source has a specific agenda.
Unique insights?…science doesn’t partake into insights, else it becomes a belief which eschews science.

**1350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting skeptical arguments http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
**100 eminent scientists including Nobel winners and IPCC lead authors contesting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW-e.g., human caused) who wrote the U.N. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360
**31,000+ scientists disavowing AGW, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s
http://www.petitionproject.org
**Over 1000 scientists worldwide disavowing AGW signed onto USA Senate report http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
or
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
**100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming, March 30, 2009
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9764
[ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]
**In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists wrote to protest against the anti-scientific, alarmist position being adopted by Hansen and Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They wrote: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”
or: 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
**Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
**Professor Lindzen has systematically destroyed every CAGW argument:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
**This one NOT scientists, just the general population of the world, across the board: UN Poll Reveals: Global Population Not Convinced by Climate Change Scaremongering A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/t Watts Up With That)…
Back to scientists:
**“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated.” – Patrick Moore, Ph.D. and Greenpeace co-founder. See also: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
**Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
**eminent “Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from the American Physical Society, writing:
“The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.”
from: NoTricksZone by Pierre Gosselin http://notrickszone.com/
**One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: Climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.
**Dr. Lawrence Solomon, once a believer in AGW, realized belatedly, that he was wrong, because he found out that there were too many eminent Professors, who were skeptics and he decided to write a book, titled: “The Deniers” and he explained that he was sad about the enormous corruption among the doomsday “scientists”, especially when they were in the management of institutions like universities and weather-departments. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/
**Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the peer reviewed published survey results of Meteorologists who are also TV forecasters, showing that only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming. He says:
“AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.
**Like Professor Emeritus Robert Tennekens, a Dutch professor in meteorology, who after a 10-year stint lecturing in the U.S. was asked to lead the Dutch meteorological department in the Bilt, Holland. After he found out about the corrupt way his staff was following the I.P.C.C.’s computer-modeling, he tried to stamp this habit out, but because too many of his staff and colleagues had powerful friends in the then Dutch government, he was sacked from his job.
**Professor Bellamy the British botanist also received the sack, when he decided to speak out against the AGW corruption on B.B.C. That is not science, that is corruption, when honest people dare to speak out for the truth and then get sacked from their job/career.
**Professor Tim Flannery who was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister and who is paid Audlrs. 180,000 in tax-payers’ money to advise her on climate change, predicted over and over again for the last 5 years, that Australia by 2009 would be a total arid and barren place, with all the dams in the major cities totally empty. Well, since last year a number of states saw huge floods destroying their properties and crops as dams in Queensland overflowed and the same now is happening there and we in Sydney, New South Wales experienced the coldest days in our summer since 1916! [text from last three items copied from another commentator]
And on and on and on – the list is nearly endless, I’ve just pulled a small number of such quotes to post here.

@Rational Db8
You say:
‘Why do you assume we make no effort to understand the actual research?’
My response: Because many of the posts on this forum criticizing peer-reviewed science at NASA, NOAA, or in the IPCC Assessment are in fact themselves wrong on the Science, and show a clear lack of curiosity about the details of the Science, but instead show a ready-fire-aim mentality — which misses the (Scientific) mark repeatedly.
You say:
“….more horrified we became with the shoddy work that was making it through peer review and being published – and how grossly the research was being exaggerated by the media and activist “climate scientists.” In fact it was by evaluating and understanding the peer reviewed published research that we became skeptics. That’s how I got there – and I’ve heard the same experience related from many others. ”
I say:
Multiple studies of peer-reviewed papers show that 99+% support or confirm AGW. The constant refrain of they’re ‘all corrupt’, or ‘fraudulent’ are not the cries of scientists, but rather of the uneducated and the conspiracy theorists, and perhaps a few with science education that haven’t bothered to study the research.
If you really believe that real scientists have discovered how shoddy the science of AGW is, why haven’t they published to correct the record? That’s the test, and they fail –completely.
You say:
“The IPCC… is a POLITICAL organization and not a scientific one. Their very mandate and mission was to study the harmful effects of AGW. NOT to determine IF AGW is occurring, not to determine if is is, would the benefits outweigh possible harm or would the harm be worse? Nope. They began with the grossly unscientific assumption that AGW was a fact and was occurring. And the summary isn’t a scientific paper – it is, in fact, reviewed and modified at will by government appointed bureaucrats – and never sent back for the scientists to correct errors or flaws. What’s more, the authors are hand picked and appointed by governments too, not based on merit. ”
I say:
In my 40 year Scientific and technical career, I worked with many who contributed as volunteers on IPCC Committees and your claims are 100% false:
1) The IPCC’s mission was NEVER to prove that warming was man-made. AGW is the conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. It’s just that you and your cohorts don’t like the conclusion.
2) The head of the IPCC is appointed by government, but the working members of the IPCC are not government appointed bureaucrats, but rather volunteers from all walks of life — Corporations, Universities, Engineering and Scientific organizations, independent researchers, etc.
3) The selection of those IPCC members is by other volunteers –their PEERS–, not by governments. You are simply wrong.
You say:
“Not to mention you’re playing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Science isn’t done by authority or consensus, but by experiment and measured data. Computer model output isn’t measured or empirical data. But if you really want to play the authority game, and since you made the claim that supposedly we simply believe whatever any non-scientist says so long as it’s anti-AGW, then consider that there are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is. ”
I say:
‘Science isn’t done by consensus’ Of course it isn’t. A Scientific Consensus (or more accurately—‘near consensus’) is the RESULT of scientists coming to similar conclusions about a physical phenomenon, not a starting point. What if hundreds of researchers arrive at completely different conclusions — then what???. Your point is self serving — by your standard any conclusion of science arrived at by all scientists is bogus. And that would include ALL established science. What a crock.
You say:
“..there are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is.”
I say:
99% of peer -reviewed papers conclude or confirm AGW. Almost NO scientists active in the field dispute AGW. You’ve got it backwards.

@Rational Db8
The essence of your gish gallop debating is that you reject peer reviewed science, although you seem to believe there are many peer-reviewed science papers that reject AGW. If so, post one. You’ll find them hard to find, as did Dr. James Powell (twice appointed to the National Science Board, and ex-President of the Franklin Institute, among other accomplishments) — he found 2 out of 10,885 climate papers: http://www.jamespowell.org/Piecharts/styled/index.html.
Which means you cannot accept relativity, plate tectonics, DNA, Evolution, or the findings of solid state physics which gave us computers, and more. Cherry picking is no more valid when applied to peer-reviewed science than it is to trend lines on charts.
All your lambasting of the Science establishment is no more than another version of conspiracy theory. You want to live in that world? Knock yourself out. It’s not for me. Or for competent science.

“I was addressing Db8’s issue which is clearly the first –whether or not man is a factor.”
Clearly you were NOT addressing any issue of mine. I never so much as implied that man isn’t a factor. In fact I stated quite clearly the issue was if man is a SIGNIFICANT factor, or, exactly as Lief put it “how much.”
“The second issue is a subject of considerable research: The spectrum of findings range from 1.5C to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of about 3C. Outliers of less than 1.5 and greater than 4.5 are atypical.”
Oh, really? 14 published papers since 2010 alone have lower ranges than the IPCC, 10 of those with the lower bound below 1.5C and all with a midpoint well below 3C. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-collection-of-evidence-for-a-lower-climate-sensitivity-continues-to-grow-now-up-to-14-papers-lower-than-ipcc/

@ dbstealey
Thanks for the positive feedback. You’re so right about whack-a-mole with these types, unfortunately.

Warren, you seem to have a very serious case of psychological projection (e.g., falsely accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of). I have in fact posted links to a very large number of peer reviewed published papers from reputable journals. If you are unable to follow links or note and follow citations to such in discussion articles I’ve provided, then you are so incompetent that you shouldn’t even bother spewing your baseless opinions. And it’s pretty clear that’s the case, unfortunately. You prove it even further with the following:
“The unprecedented rate of rise in global temperatures, the melting of glaciers, shrinking of arctic sea ice extent, the reduction in the Greenland ice sheet, migration of species, the decreasing alkalinity of oceans, the decreasing differences between daytime highs and night time lows– and more–are all predictable, testable and verifiable conclusions of AGW.”
In science correlation is not causation. NONE of what you note, even if accurate (and much of it isn’t), is the slightest bit of evidence of any AGW. First, there is nothing the least bit “unprecedented” about the recent relatively mild warming that has occurred in a relatively linear fashion since the end of the Little Ice Age, not in terms of either rate or magnitude. In fact there have been many times historically where there were far faster and larger temperature changes. Cripes, the rate and magnitude of change after the end of the LIA but before man started producing significant amounts of CO2 was almost exactly the same as the rate and magnitude that has occurred while AGW was supposedly occurring. Glaciers have melted before – in fact at times even more and faster than we’ve seen in the past 50 or 60 years. Species migrations have also changed, nothing new or unusual there either. We don’t even BEGIN to have sufficient measurements to have a clue if ocean pH is or isn’t actually changing – we have no baseline, so that claim is just absurd and unscientific any way you cut it. There are other things that can cause a narrowing between day and nighttime temperatures too – human land use issues and irrigation being a major one.
But again, even if ALL of those things were occurring as you claim, it still isn’t evidence of AGW. Correlation is NOT causation. If it were, then all we have to do to reduce suicides is make people drink at least two cups of coffee a day (half the suicide rate), and we’d all know that darkness causes crime, as does wearing sneakers/tennis shoes (and prolly the same for hoodies). And pirates – well actually a LACK of pirates, is clearly responsible for global warming. This has been conclusively proven by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Open Letter To Kansas School Board. And the outcome of the Washington Redskin’s games determines the outcome of presidential elections http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/regression-abuse.html .
Oh, but wait, golly, gee, maybe you’re right, after all about the glacier and sea ice melting, look at what I just found:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Oops, nope, that was from the Washington Post, in 1922.
But you still might be right, after all, there is this:
The extent of summer sea ice during the  19th century, insofar as it is shown in patterns  of navigability inferred from ship tracks, the  direct observations of explorers, and a number  of native accounts, is remarkably similar to  present ice climatology. A chart of northern  Canada (Figure 2) shows the routes followed  by discovery expeditions and their wintering  locations between 1818 and 1859, and also  displays the frequency that sea ice has  occurred during the recent 30-year reference  period 1971–2000. It is perhaps surprising that  most of the Northwest Passage was navigated  during the 19th century, with expedition ships  coming within 150 km of completing the passage on a number of occasions. Most   significant is that even in years that were   recognized as unfavorable at the time, ships  were still able to reach locations that would  be consistent with the worst ice conditions  that have occurred during the modern reference period. Of 33 expedition or supply ships  bound for the western part of Lancaster  Sound between 1819 and 1859, only two  failed due to unfavorable ice conditions.
Oops, nope, that was accounts from 19th century Canadian Arctic explorer’s logs, reflecting climate conditions 200 years ago that were pretty much the same as present day… Arctic Ice Conditions : The Same As 200 Years Ago
Care to explain all the glacier receeding and ice melting that occurred so rapidly back before man was even adding any significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, e.g., before AGW even started?
Then of course there’s this: Roald Amundsen: Navigates Northwest Passage The first known successful navigation of the Northwest Passage – in a SAILING ship, no power other than the wind, no GPS, no satellite telemetry to help avoid ice flows, all the way back in in 1906. It is strongly suspected, however, the the Vikings did the same during the Medieval Warm Period.
Give that step in the Scientific Method a try, Stealey… I imagine you’ll find it a new and refreshing experience.”
I strongly suggest you try taking your own advice, Warren – it’s pretty clear you wouldn’t know the scientific method if it smacked you in the face knocking you right off your feet.

@dbstealey
Not measurable? Really? You don’t know how to measure long term declines in ice packs? Or reductions in arctic sea ice extent? Or the ongoing reduction in the difference between daytime highs and night time lows? Or track the migration of species? Really?
Your posts are the perfect example of why we use educated surgeons instead of barbers for surgeries, or why we go to PhD Scientists instead of amateurs for reliable Science.

Big Brother Warmist is becoming more and more desperate…..

The problem is…..you’re both right!
The parallels are many…..