TB, how many times have I said that on scientific matters I intentionally look for arguments that are against my point of view ? How many times have I said that I have only found the global warming denialist's arguments flawed, intentionally misleading, or just plain wrong?

Peiser as asked to back up his claim ith a list of the articles he claimed to have found - his claim has fallen VERY flat:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

FROM: http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/05/take-the-global-warming-taste-test/

Now, however, Tim Lambert has gotten Peiser to cough up the goods – the 34 (now, for some mysterious reason, 33) scientific abstracts that cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming. Tim is inviting readers to go through the abstracts, and record their own conclusions. My take after reading them: the claim that Peiser’s 33 abstracts “reject or doubt the view …” is completely unsustainable. There’s one undoubted rejection of the anthropogenic case (no. 27) – but it comes from that well-known arbiter of peer-reviewed scientific neutrality, the ‘Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues’ of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. There are a few others that could be construed as scepticism (the explicit ones appear to be either outdated or else personal views), but the vast majority of the papers that Peiser cites don’t even begin to make any general arguments about global warming, let alone claims that the anthropogenic argument is bogus. Abstracts no. 12, 13 and 25 aren’t even scientific research; they appear to be postmodern inquiries into the construction of scientific authority. If I’d been asked (while wearing my hat as a member of GWU’s Center for International Science and Technology Policy) to review Peiser’s letter and evidence for possible publication in a peer-reviewed journal, I’d have rejected them summarily, and made some fairly warm comments in my rejection letter. I’d have done exactly the same if it had been making the opposite argument (that is if Peiser had used similar evidence to argue that there was support for global warming). Simply put, I don’t think Peiser’s evidence even begins to provide proper support for his claims. But, in fairness to Peiser, he’s made the evidence that he’s using publicly available, so you can go over to Tim’s place and take the taste-test for yourself.

Peiser is NOT a climate scientist, he is an anthropologist... his letter as rejected for good reason, NOT as part of some evil conspiracy.

Notice ho out of date most of the references in his letter are, and notice that of the distinguished scientific organisations he claims back him, he cites only ONE, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, (Peiser implies AAPG is one of many, when in fact, it as one of one):

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus view' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:

"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8)

Now I could simply dismiss them as having obvious motive for being biased, but that is not really fair- however the fact is AAPG itself had to rewrite their statement last year. They no longer completely reject anthropogenic global warming:

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

In fact, there is no recognized national or international scientific organization that actually rejects anthropogenic global warming.

Lets look at the organizations that have issued statement acknowledging anthropogenic global warming:


American Meteorological Society

American Institute of Physics

American Astronomical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Physical Society

American Chemical Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

European Geosciences Union

Federal Climate Change Science Program

Geological Society of America

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

Joint science academies’ statement 2005

Joint science academies’ statement 2007

Royal Meteorological Society

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

The Institution of Engineers Australia

The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

U.S. National Research Council

National Center for Atmospheric Research

World Meteorological Organization

At what point do we get to point out that your argument that its 'bad science' and a conspiracy is sounding more and more like the argument of those claiming that the moon landing was a hoax?