A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

According to Judith Curry, a climatologist, on her blog 'climate etc.' consensus was manufactured by the news hounds, the real original report states a lot of 'may's' 'could's' 'perhaps' are in it, but that was not dramatic enough to make any sort of headline, so as the Brits say, it was 'sexed up' there is no consensus. As regards climate, the middle east, the economy, I stay away from the MSN, and read the news blogs put out by people who seem to not have axes to grind. (such as ATS.com!)

originally posted by: Mianeye
You should question everything.

The Times has manufactured an unfounded climate change conspiracy theory
Who needs scientific evidence on climate change when you can distract the world with shiny new conspiracies?

So should you...

The 97% consensus... was never 97%.

I've heard that parroted around like it was something inscribed on stone tablets from the top of a mountain and I'm sick of it...

It's like NOBODY CAN READ A PAPER THESE DAYS!

The people who wrote that 97% consensus paper (Cook et al. of Skeptical Science) conveniently leave out some pertinent information:

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Source

So for those who can't do math....

That is 97.1% OF 32.6% of the abstracts.

Meaning... they threw away the other 66% of the papers because they mentioned climate but didn't attribute it to humans.

So 1/3 of the abstracts (3,896 papers) had expressed a position on AGW, meaning that the group had already provided information in the abstract of their paper that they believed in global warming or man-made global warming.

OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE 97% CONSENSUS AMONG THOSE PAPERS WHEN THEY ALREADY TAKE THE POSITION OF AGW!

Yet, they don't talk about the other 2/3 of the papers (7,930 papers) that didn't express anything about AGW in the abstract. It says "no position on AGW" - meaning no position on anthropogenic global warming" or man-made climate change. Likely because they believe in natural variations or that there just isn't enough data to arrive at conclusions.

The 1/3 they DID find, was qualified based on abstracts that indirectly implied or stated things like:

"Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause"

That group of "implied" abstracts was INCLUDED in the 32.6% that support AGW. Your 97% is based on THAT... such sound science by a group of sound scientists like Cook.

The qualifiers of the other 66% of papers that DID NOT support AGW:

"Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming"

"Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming"

"Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming"

So you see how the only thing that you hear about and is propagandized to death is what they want you to hear?

They didn't say that "of 32% of climate based papers that support AGW, 97% of them agree", which would have been the FACTS and not a bunch of spoon-fed gargage.

So yes Mianeye....

You should question everything.

And folks should read the papers they pretend to understand or have read before they go around parroting numbers that they've seen in blogs and heard on TV.

If what I just showed you isn't a clear and gross misinterpretation of facts and data, and an even more clear demonstration of how AGW proponents twist facts to suit their agenda, then it won't matter if we're in an ice-age, you'll still think we're causing it and will freeze to death waiting for it to get warmer, since it's just "temporary".

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's like NOBODY CAN READ A PAPER THESE DAYS!

You are right, especially when it's behind a pay wall, like the link you just posted.

All i see is mud sling back and forth, no one seems to be trust worthy, even the peer reviewed is questionable.
Richard Tol’s 97% Scientific Consensus Gremlins

One attacker of the Cook et al. paper surprised me though: the econometrician Richard Tol. Since the release of the Cook et al. paper he’s been criticising it and attempting to show his criticisms have merit. Most of it has played out via his blog, on twitter, and in the comment sections of various websites. What he said there seems to be the basis for his paper critiquing Cook et al. After 4 attempts at 3 different journals his fifth attempt at getting this paper accepted finally succeeded. After reading it I can understand why he had trouble getting it accepted and I don’t understand how it managed to survive peer-review.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

No.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's like NOBODY CAN READ A PAPER THESE DAYS!

You are right, especially when it's behind a pay wall, like the link you just posted.

All i see is mud sling back and forth, no one seems to be trust worthy, even the peer reviewed is questionable.
Richard Tol’s 97% Scientific Consensus Gremlins

One attacker of the Cook et al. paper surprised me though: the econometrician Richard Tol. Since the release of the Cook et al. paper he’s been criticising it and attempting to show his criticisms have merit. Most of it has played out via his blog, on twitter, and in the comment sections of various websites. What he said there seems to be the basis for his paper critiquing Cook et al. After 4 attempts at 3 different journals his fifth attempt at getting this paper accepted finally succeeded. After reading it I can understand why he had trouble getting it accepted and I don’t understand how it managed to survive peer-review.

That's incorrect.

The link works fine, I checked it on both my laptop, tablet and phone.

I would call it more than a gremlin... but if you read the link, or my post which summarizes the argument, you'll see that everyone is being played by statistics on the 97% thing. It's purely a numbers game, by omission.

And it's not just one person that is attacking it.

Dr. William Briggs, a well-known statistician, immediately thrashed the Cook paper by seeing the exclusion of the approximately 8000 papers that didn't support Cook's model of consensus, leaving the 32% of remaining papers that already had bias for AGW, so reaching 97% consensus amongst them is silly.

It's astonishing that the paper made it through peer-review, but no wonder why it failed 4 other previous attempts.

But alas Mianeye... you are right.

I fear that even the peer-review process is taking an editorial bias, where the people who ultimately bless the papers are allowing their own bias to blacklist certain papers and scientists in both camps.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The link works fine, I checked it on both my laptop, tablet and phone.

My bad, i assumed it was the same link that you posted yesterday, which was behind a pay wall

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

No.

Hmmm.... another ATS post is not what I would consider strong support for Cook.

First of all, that post references Cook's website to prop up the 97% consensus. Um, he wrote part of the paper, so using his site as an argument for support that he is right is not unbiased enough to use as an argument.

Further, the link to Wikipedia of organizations that support AGW are almost all government institutions made up of people who can't afford to lose their jobs and pensions by speaking in opposition to their employers. We've seen an earlier post showing what happens to those folks when they vocalize.

Lastly, Anderegg and Doran both wrote papers, but what you don't see is that Doran's paper is based on Anderlegg's work, which has been showed many times to be deeply flawed. the most notable is the selection of ONLY PROMINENT PUBLISHERS OF PAPERS.

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field

How does one group arrive at 97% based on 1,372 researchers, and another group arrive at 97% based on 11,944 papers?

Very simply... Anderegg was first to publish, and his methods were later found to be inaccurate and improperly divisive of the groups he was attempting to measure by putting them all into 2 "buckets" - AGW or non-AGW, when clearly there are varying degrees of agreement that don't just fall into two categories. The selection process for who participated was also determined to be agnostic of any researcher who "someone" decided that they weren't worthy enough to be included, without specifying the criteria as to why they were not included.

Also worth noting is that some scientists publish FAR more papers than others. If those are the same scientists you are measuring against, and just one of them publishes 10% of all of the papers across several journals, and has a pro-AGW view, how is that a fair measure of ALL scientists in the field? It's not.

Doran then based his work on Anderegg's using similar techniques.

Cook then based his work on both of theirs.

While I recognize that science is seeing the flaws in the hypothesis and then refining until everything lines up, that is not what happened with these papers.

There are only 3 papers that support this view... all 3 of them have been found to be deeply flawed by statisticians and social scientists.

The Cook paper, which is the one most widely cited and used, as I showed in my above post, is wrong. You didn't provide anything in support of Cook or against the way the numbers were arrived at, so I'm going to assume that you agree that 32% consensus is the more accurate number.

~Namaste

I don't mean to disrupt this thread, so call this a drive-by-ranting.

You are correct...I agree that climate change or global warming...whatever they are calling it now, is a lie as far as it being the fault of humans. But it is only one, tiny topic among many...all within the same game. And the game goes like this. They (whomever "they" are) create a "problem". Global warming, ebola, terrorism, etc. The media spreads the word, the minions support the topic and the government acts. The purpose or goal of the game is to take from the people (country and/or world). To take freedom, money, power, etc. from the people and place it with "them".

Welcome to the society we have created. So as much as I support the truth being told within this thread...it is a fill-in-the-blank situation with "climate change" being utilized here. Now...lets fix the problem itself...not just the symptom. Once the problem goes away, all the symptoms will follow.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: network dude

lol

You see, due to the normal responses from the AGW crowd sometimes sarcasm can be wrongfully interpreted as another reproach from the AGW proponents.

You may be right in certain instances with your argument that some scientists are towing the line etc and that AGW proponents mock too often instead of debating the points many times.

However...there are real scientists doing real science. Not everyone is in on some conspiracy or at the mercy of grants that depend on a certain outcome. What about that science? Sometimes you mock and belittle as much as any Man Made Global Warming proponent and at times you appear not to listen to any of the arguments for it or listen to any of the Data. Know what I mean?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I have to question you.
How in the world do you stop the earth from doing what it has been doing, for Millions of years?

Say we shut down every factory. We were able to "Magically" get rid of every pollutant.

You don't think the earth is still going to go through Cool cycles? Hot Cycles?

Didn't the earth have an Ice Age? Wasn't a lot of it Tropical at one point? (thinking of fossils found in Greenland.)

Not fighting with you. I just don't understand why it seems all of these things that happened way, way, back, don't seem to be important, compared to what they are trying to make us believe now.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I have to question you.
How in the world do you stop the earth from doing what it has been doing, for Millions of years?

Say we shut down every factory. We were able to "Magically" get rid of every pollutant.

You don't think the earth is still going to go through Cool cycles? Hot Cycles?

Didn't the earth have an Ice Age? Wasn't a lot of it Tropical at one point? (thinking of fossils found in Greenland.)

Not fighting with you. I just don't understand why it seems all of these things that happened way, way, back, don't seem to be important, compared to what they are trying to make us believe now.

Good point. The scientists are saying that this Man Made Global Warming cycle that we're in is accelerated and not associated with any of those natural cycles. The good news is, that if we start combating it now, we're also reducing pollution and smog and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. There are many benefits to working on this now.

I like pictures... don't you?

Here are some graphs from Cook's paper... the same paper that I just showed you above is a gross perversion of science and statistics...

Let's point out some more things from their paper... (same source as above)

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus.

Those abstracts were 32% of the total. So 32% expressed a position on AGW and out of the 32% that expressed a position on AGW in their abstracts, 97% of them agree.

More importantly, that means that 67% did not explicitly agree with AGW.

How the hell did they get to 97%?



Let's see... well, they excluded the other 66%. lol

That means roughly 99% of the abstracts that remain already expressed a position on AGW, so among them, there is a 97% consensus.

How convenient.

Let's all be very, very clear, that this is not the same as 97% of climate scientists agreeing on the cause.

Not even close!

Here is a little more that nobody wants to discuss, and just glosses over in the 97% paper...

Over time, the no position percentage has increased (simple linear regression trend 0.87% ± 0.28% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.66,p < 0.001) and the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW has equally decreased.

What choo talkin bout Willis?

So the factual part of their findings, however they arrived at them, still says that as time goes on, more scientists are taking a "no position" on AGW, or to clarify, they are saying:

"I DON'T KNOW!"

Wow, imagine that...

Here is the graph to show it (from Cook et al paper):



See the black line? Amazing how that line is trending way up, showing that more papers are neither for nor against AGW.

The green line, while growing, is not trending at nearly the pace as the black line.

How convenient that Cook and the other "scientists", left out the entire group in the black as part of their "consensus" math.

Here is another in case it isn't abundantly clear:



I added the red lines to delineate the number of abstracts that were considered in the 97% number. Only the green line was counted in their calculation. Not a single abstract that has "no position" was included - and "no position" could mean that they might be for, might be against, but it's unclear from the abstract so they just threw it out.

Notice the two red trend lines in the second half?

"Settled science" you say??

If so, then why is the percentage of pro-AGW abstracts decreasing, and the "no position" ones increasing?

Worth thinking about, isn't it.



Looking at those findings, as much as I would love to dismiss that paper, actually supports the lack of consensus and the movement away from AGW support.

97% makes a great Presidential punch line, fantastic blog headers and news headlines.

However, it is misrepresented and constantly regurgitated.

So any statistic arrived at, as it approaches 100%, should be very suspicious.

But there isn't even 97% consensus that we actually landed on the moon and that the Earth has been here for more than 6,000 years, so there's no reason to believe that the most argumentative people in the world (scientists) would all agree on much of anything.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Those are once again really good points, and thank you SonOfTheLawOfOne, and everyone else for all those links and the responses. It's great to see that not everyone is taken in by "the science of fear".

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Those are once again really good points, and thank you SonOfTheLawOfOne, and everyone else for all those links and the responses. It's great to see that not everyone is taken in by "the science of fear".

Appreciate that.

I am not trying to hijack your thread EU, I'm just sick of people trying to win every debate by using a number to sound "authoritative" with it when it is misrepresented and misleading.

I just can't listen to "97% of climate scientists agree..." anymore.

It truly and literally is brain-washing via propaganda.

Argumentum ad populum, ad nauseum.

~Namaste

originally posted by: amazing
...


However...there are real scientists doing real science. Not everyone is in on some conspiracy or at the mercy of grants that depend on a certain outcome. What about that science? Sometimes you mock and belittle as much as any Man Made Global Warming proponent and at times you appear not to listen to any of the arguments for it or listen to any of the Data. Know what I mean?

First of all, as has been shown many times in the past even the data that is constantly being used by the AGW has been shown to be manipulated. I don't know why there are people who would seem to think that us skeptics believe that 'thousands of scientists are in the hoax". They don't have to be, all you need is a core bunch of AGW scientist proponents who control much of the data and manipulate it. That's been proven to have been happening.

From raw temperature data being deleted so that it's extremely hard to verify the claims made by the AGW proponents...

We Lost the Original Data
...
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

To the Russian and the Chinese temperature data "errors and manipulation" being used as evidence in favor of AGW...

What the Russian papers say
...
Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
...

en.ria.ru...


To the admissions of making false claims to put political pressure on world leaders...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

No it's ok, I appreciate the feedback and all the information you and other members provide. I also try to participate in the good threads you make. The more heads that keep digging through the mud (aka AGW ) the more information we all can pool in together. It is also always good to see that there are still many members that don't let the "pressure of the science of fear" cloud their judgement, but are also willing to question the claims of "settled science" and the false claims that "the majority of scientists agree with AGW".

originally posted by: amazing

Good point. The scientists are saying that this Man Made Global Warming cycle that we're in is accelerated and not associated with any of those natural cycles. The good news is, that if we start combating it now, we're also reducing pollution and smog and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. There are many benefits to working on this now.

That's simply not true thou. The thing is the observational data says the opposite to the claims that "no natural process can account for the warming". not to mention that "there are also many many scientists who keep trying to show that the observational data does not corroborate the GCMs/computer models and the claims of the AGW crowd.

From the fact that the sun's activity wasn't "stable" for most of the 20th and part of the 21st century.







Notice that the blue data points in the graph show an increase in the solar magnetic storms, and that the minimum has been also increasing even though the AGW crowd claims this is not true. Not to mention the fact that the past 80-100 years the sun's activity has been at the highest in 1,000 years.

To the fact that the Earth has been warming and started warming since the 1600s, almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution.



The above is a temperature graph of global boreholes (as in underground temperature). Now remember that the Earth's mantle is a solid and it takes more energy, and a longer time to warm it than it takes to warm the atmosphere. Even the oceans (liquids) take a longer time frame and more to warm, or cool than it takes to change temperatures in the atmosphere. Which are also facts not being taken into consideration by the AGW crowd.

To the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, and it's weakening rate has been exponentially increasing since around the 1840s.



The red data points to the left in the above graph show the 20 and part of the 21st century fluctuation changes the Earth's magnetic field has been experiencing.

Here is info on the fact that the rate of the weakening magnetic field has exponentially increased even more.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

by Kelly Dickerson | July 08, 2014 11:29am ET

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.
...

www.livescience.com...

Despite all the facts that show that natural factors have been occurring that greatly affect the climate the AGW crowd want to claim this is not true?... what in the world?... The evidence is right there!!

Oh, and let's not forget... The fact that the observational data so far refutes the AGW computer models GCMs (global circulation models.)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Thanks for the detailed info. I do appreciate that you give in depth answers with links and all of that. I really do.

I think you're missing two points though.

A. There really are scientists telling us that AGW is a real thing. Doing real science with really good data. There are thousands of papers and articles out there. That take away is that you don't seem to be listening to any of that data? Perhaps they are wrong, but some of it is just good science.
B. There is a lot of propaganda (Billions of Dollars worth) From big oil and big polluters paying for science that supports their claims. Like you said, it only takes a small core group.
C. By claiming that AGW is a scam you're saying that NASA is wrong...that those 18 scientific associations are all wrong, that hundreds or thousands of scientists are wrong, That many universities are wrong. If that's true, then that has to be the biggest conspiracy of all time. Because, you're implying that the data you just posted supersedes or overrides NASA. That Neil Tyson Degrass lied and is a fraud. That Bill Nye the Science guy is a paid hack. Could be true. But I don't think so.

a reply to: amazing

One thing is for sure, yes it is true that "some" scientists have worked for the oil field, after all the oilfield industry also needs engineers, geologists, etc. But, the thing is none of that info I posted is based on lies. However, the AGW main scientists, like Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth, etc have all been caught in scandals in which they have lied, hid data, published false information and data such as the claim that the Himalayas were going to melt by 2035. They have claimed, and many continue to claim that "the Sun has been quiet since, take your pick, 1950s or the 1980s. Some say one date others say another date. To the claims that CO2 is more important than water vapor as a ghg, or even the sun or any natural factor that affects the climate etc.

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

The troposphere is the atmospheric layer where all surface weather events occur, and it's the atmospheric layer that affects surface temperatures. That right there should tell people that water vapor is more important than CO2. Molecule by molecule water vapor is 10 times more potent a ghg than CO2, and it exists at higher levels in the atmosphere. It accounts from 4% of atmospheric gases in the tropics and 1% at the poles. As the Earth had been warming naturally the atmosphere can contain more water vapor, which in turn causes a positive feedback effect which warms the Earth more.

Notice how during summer when it is very cloudy, and the clouds are low(as in the troposphere) temperatures normally increase. Meanwhile similar days when it is clear it's not as hot even though CO2 is supposed to be a stronger ghg than water according to the AGW claim.

Plus, you also have to take into account that just like oil industry is taking advantage of the research and observational data that shows natural factors that have been, and are still occurring to this date, the AGW crowd and ALSO oil companies are taking advantage of the AGW claims to make billions of dollars. For example, the cap and trade scheme.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Carbon Trade Exchange is a global electronic exchange platform serving both the regulatory and voluntary carbon markets

With over 145 members in 22 countries, Carbon Trade Exchange offers its members a trusted and transparent electronic marketplace for buying and selling carbon credits. CTX supports the trading of carbon credits that are originated under both the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CERs) and independent voluntary standards (VERs).
...

www.carbontradexchange.com...

Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

RemTec is a proud member and Aggregator for The Climate Action Reserve or (Reserve); RemTec is a source and develops carbon offset credits that meet the requirements of the Climate Action Reserve (Reserve) Ozone Depleting Substances Project Protocol

www.remtec.net...


If you look at who started these companies you will find their funders to be rich people like Al Gore.

BTW, Al Gore is NOT a capitalist, he is a corporatist who is using the GREEN wave to become richer than he was.

Like him there are hundreds of rich people making money from the scam that is carbon credits.


BTW, NASA scientists have also been trying to show people the truth. For example.

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...

The earth has been greening because of CO2, and despite deforestation. Although there is still a big problem with illegal deforestation in third world nations. But the truth is that studies show that more atmospheric CO2 than at the current levels, the greener earth becomes. The more harvests and growth that most plants experience, and when there is more CO2 than at present in the atmosphere plants and trees use less water leaving more water for humans and animals.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Did you know that Al Gore became a multi-millionaire because of oil companies as well as from cap and trade and other "green energy companies"?

...
Gore is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, a venture capital firm. Kleiner Perkins pours investment dollars into green energy companies and not-so-green ones. An investment firm Gore chairs, Generation Investment Management (GIM), entered into a partnership with Kleiner Perkins to "provide funding and global business-building expertise to a range of businesses, both public and private, and to entrepreneurs." Gore makes money by promoting investments that bear the imprimatur of Kleiner Perkins and GIM - including those in the supposedly dirty oil business. -
...

newsbusters.org...

Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney – and it’s all thanks to big oil

I forgot to include.

Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm

April 8, 2011


Ben Cubby

A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.

Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.

When pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one

But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.

The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed by shift2neutral's founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
...

www.smh.com.au...