We'll stick with the scientific consensus.

I am wondering what your motivation is to continue to believe in this small group of scientists that are clearly on the fringe of the scientific community. As Oreskes says in her LA Times article today:

"To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values."

Sounds like she's talking about Mr. Gelbspan's refusal to accept the consensus, so memorably described by Mr. Littlemore, that the hockey stick is flaccid.

I thought the history professor's article was silly, actually. She tried to rebut Benny Peiser by discussing the theory of continental drift in the 1920s. I believe her tactic is referred to as "fallacy by misdirection."

Michael Mann uses that one, also.

Benny Peiser's work has been discredited. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/peisners-34-33-abstracts.html for details.

retractable hose units [url=http://www.yalankan.com/retractable25.html]retractable hose units[/url]retractable hose units http://www.yalankan.com/retractable25.html,william forster [url=http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html]william forster[/url]william forster http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html,nassau county synagogues [url=http://www.resultsaboutall.net/synagogue86.html]nassau county synagogues[/url]nassau county synagogues http://www.resultsaboutall.net/synagogue86.html,tammany hall orrin forster [url=http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html]tammany hall orrin forster[/url]tammany hall orrin forster http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html,e.m.forsters work the sinister corridor of our age [url=http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html]e.m.forsters work the sinister corridor of our age[/url]e.m.forsters work the sinister corridor of our age http://www.yalankan.com/forster89.html,

The Oreskes review had problems that were revealed when Peiser attempted to replicate it.  Any errors he made unsuccessfully attemptingto replicate her review of the literature reflect on him of course but don't eliminate her responsibility for the errors she made.  My guess is that is why she did not want to address Peiser head on in her Los Angeles Times piece.  Much safer to discuss the 1920s.
Another view-
http://maize-energy.blogspot.com/2006/07/naomi-oreskes-asks-wrong-climate.html

Tartly Critical, - If you look here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm , you find a short history of this entire controversy. Notably, Peiser has abandoned his criticism of Oreskes' work: What he claimed were incorrect assignments on Oreskes' part turned out to be incorrect assignments on HIS part. To quote him: "Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included." and also: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." - One reason that Oreskes may not have addressed Peiser's original note was that it was never published in a journal or newspaper. It was just made available on a website. In my opinion, Oreskes' work stands. Peiser's has gone down the drain.

Well, as is typical of these drive by machine gunning attacks, it is difficult to pin down any one thing because nothing is specific or factual.

"The analysis that this is the hottest time in a thousand years just drove anyone in statistics crazy."

A swipe at MBH98 I presume.  According the the recent NAS report the conclusions of that study are "plausible", so while Lindzen may in fact have a legitimate criticism, he is seriously misrepresenting things here.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/06/hockey-season-finally-over.html 

"And the 20-foot rise in sea levels that would flood so many out of their homes was based on assumptions done 25 years ago"

Perhaps, but so what?  Those numbers are completely non-controversial and well established.  Greenland has enough ice for 6.5m sea level rise, the WAIS has enough for 8m, EAIS 65m.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

So why is Lindzen laughing at this?  Could it be he has no substantive point to make? 

"The temperature change over the last century, even if it were all due to man, is so much less than the models predict,"

What models is he referring to?  The 20th century is very successfully hindcasted by all the major climate models.  Any model that could not do so would clearly be severly limited in utility.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm

Do you think Lindzen doesn't know this, or is he lying to us?  It is one or the other and I find it quite unlikely that he does not know (unless he is chosing to remain ignorant to allow deniability)

Care to defend any of Lindzen's misinformation?

As to correcting Lindzen's misinformation, I don't see any to correct.

The climate models ARE severely limited in utility. There's so much science doesn't know yet. It is, at present, impossible to build a reliable climate model.

Hey Tartly, sorry again about using "historical" references; the internet isn't perfect. Bt if you have any fresher information on how much the coal lobby is paying Lindzen (or anyone else) in consulting fees, please feel free to file it here at your leisure.

Link to a LINDZEN article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

This is from July 2, 2006. Thats a little newer than 11 years, but maybe I got the question wrong.

Its pure denial. He says the glaciers are advancing and the ice sheets are growing, yet we measure them and see the runoff. Its got to be pure lies.
quote:
"global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998."
// K - what do you say to that? Isn't the agreed statistic more like 2.C in a fairly steady upwards trend since 1800? [fudging the time scale to one that suits him, and it is not used by the scientists?] And that 'the heating has not really started yet' being a major point - its the forecast that is concerning.

He uses confusion, distraction, and then this:
quote: "Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place."
//

Yes, there really is such a group. There is also a consensus - all those that signed that statement.
WTF? Does it make ANY sense?

It's painfully obvious the proponents of anthropagenic global warming fall into one of two categories.

1- They are either intentionally ignoring the long history of earth facts

or

2- They are utterly ignorant of earth's geologic history.

If man is causing global warming then pray tell...what has caused it hundreds of times in the past? And in the past the warming as observed is an order of magnitude GREATER than what we've seen today.

If indeed man is causing this "pitance" of warming to day...then what caused it 25,000 years ago that resulted in glaciers retreating from TEXAS to Canada? Was it Cro-Magnon and his coal fired electric plants?

If man is causing this current micro rise in the global temperature....what caused it at in the middle Tertiary period 45 million years ago. There was NO polar ice cap at that time. There was a coniferous-decidous forest growing at the north polar chock full of alligators (read champosaurus). And there is a HUGE body of evidence to prove this irrefutably. It is called the ossil Forest of Axel Heiberg Island. The earth was far and away warming then. What caused that warming? It could not have been man's activities.

The earth has a long well established history of warming and cooling. The earth has undergone numerous major climate changes long before man was even present. To believe man is the cause or gloabl warming today when he could not have been hundreds of times before is folly...sheer folly.

Seriously

Cody Griffin
Certified Professional Geologist

Lindzen has one really good thing going for him, He's right.

Glenn
Environmenatl Chemist

Yes, the climate on earth has varied over the ages. It is not, however, a constant, unwavering, simple cycle. The many changes in climate seen on earth are due to a number of factors that scientists speculate on, and possibly some unknown factors that they have not yet guessed. My question for Cody is simply this: Why does a past history of climate change on earth preclude the current situation having any possible anthropogenic cause? Cody calls this sheer folly. So, mr. Certified Professional Geologist, answer me this...if the species of the past went extinct without help from man, then using your "logic", how could man cause species in existence in recent times to go extinct? Take the passenger pigeon as an example. How big was the population 500 years ago? How did that population go from many millions to extinction? Using Cody logic, it couldn't have been man's doing, because lot's of species went extinct before man ever existed.

Cody, if you truly are a Certified Professional Geologist, then it's obvious that demonstrating simple competence in logic is not a part of the certification process. However, it's never too late to go back to school and take a course in logic or reasoning. Good luck.