As far as both sides, we don’t let the tobacco industry have a say when the surgeon general says there’s a link between smoking and cancer. So why let the deniers? For me there is the side of those who read and follow science, and those who don’t understand the science and spread the lies to propagate their ideals to the masses. As a scientist myself, I can tell you which side I’ll be on.

“Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff”

So you had a hand in putting out the crap that comes out of Inhofe’s office. I knew I saw something familiar in the the press releases by your bosses office to your posts hear. The same cherry picking of quotes/data, misunderstanding of climate concepts, and the same out and out lies. And for future reference, you may be taken more seriously in your posts if you leave out that you work for Sen. Inhofe.

I included links to every single citation, but the comment section rejected them. So i had to resubmit without the links to all the scientists and their studies.

Go to epw.senate.gov and search and read up on the latest science.

As for “objectivity” - I would put our EPW Senate blog up against any of the reporting from Newsweek, Time, ABC News, on climate. We actually show both sides and included links in our reports for further reading.

Nice cherry picking, why don’t you show the rest of the quote?…

Your bias in the argument is very telling. You are so convinced that AGW isn’t occurring but you can’t even answer a simple question that would let others know you’re at least objectively looking at the SCIENCE, and not the hype put out by Pielke, Inhoffe and others.

You wrote: “As I said, peer-reviewed studies and scientists are now saying that if CO2 is the warming agent some claim, it is essentially now all “tuckered out” as a warming agent. In other words, we may have seen all of most of the warming from CO2 and you still cannot distinguish that from natural climate variability”

First of all post cite some sources of these “scientists”. These sentences are scientifically wrong. From these sentences you show you know absolutely nothing about the physics of greenhouse gases, and along with that cannot even site the “scientists” who have the same misunderstanding. And yes, you CAN distinguish the current warming from natural variability. In fact its far outside the range of natural variability.

Marc, its time for you to move onto another blog, because we’ve figured out your game. I hope your paycheck is big for spreading the equally gross amount of lies.

These issues include no or improper adjustments for urban warming, instrument siting that does not meet government established standards, use of instruments with proven warm biases that are not adjusted for, changes in height and in the sheltering of instruments, major global station dropout in 1990, a tenfold increase in missing monthly data especially in areas where the government data bases show the greatest apparent warming (the FSU) and undocumented final adjustment practices. All of these issues mentioned produce a warm bias in the data.

With 841 of the 1200 US Climate stations surveyed as of 02/05/09, only 11% met the government’s own standards for siting with many on rooftops, near air conditioner units, steam heat pipes, trash burn barrels, paved roads, parking lots, and overgrown vegetation. Even the best sited instruments have issues. They tend to be ASOS stations which were specified by the FAA and focused on parameters of greatest interest to aviation like wind and were never meant to have the accuracy needed to assess small climate changes. They are required to have a precision of 0.1F but an accuracy of only plus or minus 0.9F, far in excess of the changes since 1930. Some initial efforts globally to survey stations are reporting the same issues.

The number of global stations dropped from over 6000 to well under 2000 after 1990 (most of them rural, high latitude and thus cooler). This left behind warmer, more urbanized stations. Without an adjustment to account for localized urban warmth, an apparent accelerated warming took place.

Examining purely rural stations does not confirm long term warming but a moderate cyclical change more in line with satellite based sensing data bases and natural cycles in sun and oceans with only a two decade coincidental rise of both CO2 and temperatures (1979-1998) since World War II’s Industrial boom.

See a detai8led analysis of these issues here (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf