http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/TBA--LTonly.pdf

The above is a paper by Lonnie G. Thompson of The Ohio State University.

He concludes:

Clearly mitigation is our best

option, but so far most societies

around the world, including the

United States and the other largest

emitters of greenhouse gases, have

done little more than talk about the

importance of mitigation. Many

Americans do not even accept the

reality of global warming. The fossil

fuel industry has spent millions of

dollars on a disinformation campaign

to delude the public about the threat,

and the campaign has been amazingly

successful. (This effort is reminiscent

of the tobacco industry’s effort

to convince Americans that smoking

poses no serious health hazards.) As

the evidence for human-caused climate

change has increased, the number

of Americans who believe it has

decreased. The latest Pew Research

Center (2010) poll in October, 2009,

shows that only 57% of Americans

believe global warming is real, down

from 71% in April, 2008.

There are currently no technological

quick fixes for global warming.

Our only hope is to change our

behavior in ways that significantly

slow the rate of global warming,

thereby giving the engineers time to

devise, develop, and deploy technological

solutions where possible. Unless

large numbers of people take

appropriate steps, including supporting

governmental regulations aimed

at reducing greenhouse gas emissions,

our only options will be adaptation

and suffering. And the longer we

delay, the more unpleasant the adaptations

and the greater the suffering

will be.

Sooner or later, we will all deal

with global warming. The only question

is how much we will mitigate,

adapt, and suffer.

But politicians and big business are only now starting to accept what scientists have been saying for many decades.  True, some may be using it for their own ends, but the science came first.

If there's any hoax, it's the suggestion that politicians and big business 'invented' AGW.   Which is a bit like arguing that politicians and big business invented evolution.

Edit: oops, had forgotten I replied to that last night

I agree, politicians and big buisiness are starting to accept what scientiststs say( As interpreted by the IPCC).

The above mentioned Datum organisation has been found to be flawed and misrepresentative of science.

The science did come first.Then the IPPC came along and ruined it, claiming a false consensus as regards agw.imo

I suppose the Hoax is a joint venture?.

I do not disagree with your views on local climate change and it's effects.btw.

Pinched from UKweatherworld

Slainte!

Where is Gandalf lately.
Give us a sign Peter.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMPP43C..10D

Interesting read.

And the mainstream wonder why so many of us are doubtful...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

C. Booker? No wonder you're doubtful.

Go figure

If you need to cite the likes of Booker or Delingpole to make your point, then I'm afraid there simply was no point in the first place!

Cheers - John

If you need to cite the likes of Booker or Delingpole to make your point, then I'm afraid there simply was no point in the first place!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Warmers favourite weapon, debunk the messenger! 

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

John is perfectly entitled to, given that one simple link above shows Booker to be talking bunk

Exuse me for being out of touch, but what is wrong with the article?

Could a clear stratosphere contribute to warming?

http://spaceweather.com/

Again, the graph I posted shows what. GISS is in very good agreement with the satellite data (that's the satellite data,  the one people like Watts and the rest of the dutyfull sceptics like to mention as accurate, the one the late, great, John Daly said was accurate to .001C). OK, sometimes one dataset reads higher or lower but to pick a time (like now) when GISS reads a little bit higher is to mislead people when, as I say, the data sets do move about a bit. At times GISS reads LESS than the other records - but you wont find Booker carping on abut that...

So, really, it's a pathetic attempt to mislead his readers (or perhaps to feed them what they want?) with a vile personal attack on a fine scientist. One or the other...

Mike, do you now you accept there is warming ('contributed about .2c to recent warming' according to space weather)? So you both agree with Booker there isn't warm (he says the records showing warming are 'conjecture') and agree there is warming? Doh!

Indeed I posted a response to the article but in another thread, all the series show the same warming at the moment  GISS is a little cooler than the satellite record but all 3 surface series and both satellite series show the same warming and put this year either first or second warmest on record

I shall make it crystal clear just in case.

GISS and UAH do not measure exactly the same thing (surface vs lower troposphere). However, when put on the same baseline they match up very well; the trends are similar but at certain times you do see significant differences (GISS red, UAH blue):

So, note how they are similar, and also how GISS has been going up for the last couple of months while, yes, UAH is heading down. Booker is technically correct, but is sowing doubt over nothing at all. Why didn't Booker mention the several months in the second half of 2010 where GISS was much below UAH? Again, I'll repeat that these temp series are not measuring exactly the same thing.

So given that the trends are similar but month-to-month the series are often different, you'd think it might be sensible to smooth them over a year or so:

So UAH says the last 12 months was warmer than GISS. And as has been explained (most recently by Tom I think), many of the differences discussed here are due to ENSO (UAH is more sensitive to ENSO). Booker doesn't know this because apparently his source (Watts) doesn't seem to know it either, so they're just seeding the blogosphere with misinformation.

Tamino examines the claims that GISS is the 'odd one out' here while also pointing out Watts' blind spot for yet again failing to account for different baselines. Which has been pointed out so often it simply has to be deliberate.

I do accept that there has been warming, though I dispute the cause. Most (not all of course) 'sceptics' agree with that but obviously disagree with the cause and hence why we go round and round.

The clear stratosphere lessens some of the warming pinned onto AGW.

FWIW, I think the colder winters of late is already having an adverse effect on the AGW lobby. Public consensus is slowly but surely swinging IMHO.

10 years ago it was said that snow would become very rare in the UKMO. I know that doesn't mean it won't happen at all but nevertheless, 3 or 4 increasingly wintry winters doesn't conform to what was publically said 10 years ago when most kids would only see 'virtual' snow. Now... during the colder set up, AGW is blamed for it too. By that I am talking about the recent subject of more open water over the arctic leading to heat storage = warming lower atmosphere = increasing heights over arctic = increased blocking = breaking of polar vortex = displaced cold down over mid/N latitudes.

Can't have it both ways. It seems a plausible notion to me but then why wasn't it made  clear years ago? Always learning...? Is that the answer? Exactly. And there is why we don't know what the final outcome would end as?

Posted this in the media thread but maybe more appropriate here.

Even Boris is becoming aware of a change in the air...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

If/when we have a clear and sustained GLOBAL cooling then your comments will be well placed. Until then they seem a tad premature. Of course Jo Public is going to be misled, as even someone as knowledgeable as you is capable of misinterpreting the data.

If only Corbyn was actually right rather than just claiming to be right. He may have been right about recent cold winter weather but IIRC* this is his usual modus operandi - and a stopped clock is still right twice a day

*I can't check because his forecast archive is short and disorganised

As far as I'm aware no-one has attempted a comprehensive independent review of his accuracy but I did bother to look at one month a while ago (think it was Dec 2009) which wasn't very good. Climate scientist James Annan did do it a bit more systematically for a while but I guess he stopped when he felt he'd made his point; he only looked at monthly temp/rainfall forecasts rater than individual events which gives *****more chance to be right.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/01/corbynwatch-2008-verdict.html