As to the first bolded section, I have seen plenty of surveys of "climatologists" that splits the opinion about 50/50. If we use the generic term "scientists," then that opens the door to all manner of branches of science. Where does the line get drawn? Environmental scientists, Archeologists, Chemists, Social Scientists, or Physicists? Just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't mean that they are an expert in climatology.

The second statement is misleading as well... If Mother Nature is going to do what chemistry, biology, and physics dictate then why does she continue to astound all manner of "scientists" with her capabilities? Take for example the Gulf oil spill, at the beginning of the "crisis," people couldn't stop themselves from predicting the doom and gloom that would come for years (if no decades) to come from the spill and how the slick would be impossible to clean up. Fast forward to the present, where the fleets of boats are having trouble even FINDING any oil to filter out of the water.

 

For those who support this so-called climate bill I have a question for you .
Do you not find it hypocrtical that those who are pushing this are flying around in private jets and riding around in limos?
I find it amazing that with all the falsehoods from the past that people would actually buy into this propaganda from people who otherwise would not even give you the time of day .
This is about money and control ,nothing more and nothing less .
As a Russian immigrant to this country I 'll let you guess where the communist found a new home .

Ally

 

But they paid someone some ungodly amount of money for 'carbon offsets' so it's ok. And if they can afford it, why can't we? Oh, because we're not millionaires... (contrary to popular belief)

 

Thread Revival ... I found this on another site and I had to post.

CLIMATE CHANGE DICTIONARY

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

 

Well, after five independant investigations into "Climategate," all five inquires determined that the science was not compromised. The "junk climate science" controversy came to nothing.

Also, the Arctic sea ice you were expecting to recover from the 2009 levels didn't happen. In fact, sea ice extent (area and volume) is trending in the other direction.


Arctic Ice September 2010 - Update #1

 

Professor Lewis, a 67-year member of the American Physical Society (kind of like the AMA for physicists), has decided to tender his resignation from the group, based on his perceptions that this group’s integrity has been compromised by the money flowing from the global warming scam.
The following is the letter he wrote, first reported by My Telegraph in the U.K.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

 

Being forced to resort to the contrarian-du-jour is not a rebuttal. This curmudgeon's opinion was peer reviewed and overwhelmingly rejected.

Lewis and his vocal minority spent seven months trying to get signatures from the APS membership. They got 206 out of 47,000 members. That's less than 1/2 of one percent.

Richard Littlemore | Another Silly Climate Petition Exposed

October 12, 2010

 

Just further evidence of the death of real science and the pot o' gold mentality.

Still no evidence that quantifies the actual result of any of the proposed actions and further still no evidence that MMGW is the real threat.

The Earth has been warming for more than ten thousand years and suddenly it is our fault?

 

After five independant investigations, the manufactured scandal of Climategate came to nothing. And now this - oh, the irony:

USA Today has revealed an influential 2006 Republican congressional report that questioned the validity of global warming research was plagiarized (35 of the report’s 91 pages), and often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.

College Inc. - Report: GMU scholar plagiarized in climate report

 

It looks as if the fast and smart money has a good handle on truth.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''



.In August, The Examiner reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was laying off employees.

Two months later, drowned out by the hubbub of the mid-term elections, came an Oct. 21 announcement that CCX would end carbon trading which, as PajamasMedia’s Steve Milloy pointed out, was “the only purpose for which it was founded.”

Funded by the left-wing Joyce Foundation, whose former board included none other than future president Barack Obama, Northwestern University professor Richard Sandor set up CCX as a “voluntary” method of trading “carbon credits.” It was envisioned as the main clearinghouse for what would eventually have been a $10 trillion decidedly non-voluntary market had cap-and-trade legislation passed the Senate as it did the House.

Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines had already secured a patent for technology to extend carbon trading at CCX to individual residences. Had things gone according to plan, every business, non-profit organization and home in America that emitted carbon – which is all of them – would have formed an enormous revenue stream for savvy insiders such as Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs — CCX’s two largest investors – while imposing a crippling energy tax on everybody else.

Now that CCX itsef is disappearing like a puff of smoke, we can all breathe out carbon dioxide a lot easier.
.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Like a puff of smoke, Chicago Climate Exchange just fades away | Washington Examiner