You don't have to read the "Monday morning quarterback" opinion from USAToday. Y
Give me a break. Try to remember that
I read thiose articles at the time they were written. The press was full of such articles, litterally full of them - And there was very little science behind them, and no scientific consensus. Ninety nine percent of this was done by second rate science
writers.
It's the same exact situation with AGW theory. I would say there is no science behind AGW at this point as
the theory has repeatedly failed to make accurate predictions and is therefore, scientifically speaking, falsified.
There is also
no scientific consensus. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the facts. There are thousands of papers by critics. And the petition with the most signatures of scientists is a petition against AGW theory.
This myth of "Science predicted Global Cooling" is being played for all it's worth - Plain and simple,
So has the myth that AGW has been proven. It has, in fact, failed every key prediction which would distinguish it from natural warming. A theory which cannot predict the future is a falsified one.
Throw in the myth that there is any kind of consensus. There never has been.
And toss in the myth that the majority of scientists agree with AGW theory. There have been no real, statistically valid surveys of working scientists. But when the largest petitions are compared and the one critical of AGW theory has an order of magnitude more signatures, it's not hard to guess where the majority opinion lies.
While we're at it, toss in any claims of "warmest year" based on the surface record, including any claims from James Hansen at NASA about 2010.
The margin of error of the surface record is at least 5x greater than the claimed warming for the entire 20th century. It surprises most people to know that the IPCC has, in past reports, stated clearly that though they believed anthropogenic global warming was occurring, given the margin of error they could not rule out the opposite, that the globe might in fact have cooled over the 20th century!
I look to the satellite record which, unfortunately, is only around 30 years old. But at least the margin of error is known and is small enough that trends can be seen and trusted. The surface record is an absolute joke. So is the manner in which certain people at NASA and Hadley CRU massage the data to get whatever they want. Both have been caught red handed playing statistical games to get warming trends out of the data, data which they often refuse to provide under freedom of information requests. (And IMHO any government employee who refuses a lawful FOI request deserves jail time. Especially a scientist who is supposed to provide all data and analysis for proper peer review.)
Science did NOT predict Global cooling, only a handful of "scientists" did, and they were a tiny minority.
Science has also NOT predicted AGW. Indeed, a straight estimate of the basic physics, absent the unproven feedback effects which the AGW climate models depend on, suggest that human CO2 contribution is far too weak to be a concern against natural variation. This is consistent with ice core studies that show that much higher CO2 concentrations in the past were unable to prevent the Earth from cooling in response to other, natural variations and changes.
CO2 is simply not a significant variable in the climate. All AGW climate models assume that increased CO2 will create a feedback loop with water vapor. It's the only way you can get > 1C of warming because by itself CO2 can't do it. The problem is that these feedback loops have never been proven, and indeed appear to be absent from all the evidence we've gathered to date.
Why don't you show me the peer reviewed articles?
Peer review does not mean a theory is proven. Only when a theory consistently, repeatably provides predictions which are true can it be said to be proven. AGW theory has failed many predictions both about the general progression of warming, and about specific changes in the atmosphere and in certain regions of the Earth. As such it is a falsified theory.
While we're at it, how can there be proper peer review of the models from NASA, Hadley CRU, or IPCC when
those groups refuse lawful FOI requests to provide all relevant data?
None of this is to say human CO2 output has no impact. And perhaps a future theory will properly model that impact and allow us to make sound predictions, thereby proving that future model true. But whatever the human signature is, it is almost certainly an order of magnitude smaller than what James Hansen at NASA, or Hadley CRU, or the IPCC, have painted it to be. Their runaway water vapor feedback loops and runaway predictions have already been proven false. If they actually cared about science or the scientific method and provided all their data an analysis for proper peer review maybe one of their critics could show them why and climate science could move forward.
Are you aware that there is not ONE recognised Scientific ortganisation that Doesn't supporty the theory that Global Warming is not only occuring, but is human caused?
Are you aware that not one specific prediction made by AGW climate models has proven true? Are you aware that the scientific method is not a democratic process, that appeal to common belief is not a proof, or that organizations do not necessarily represent the views of their members?
Not one. You have to go to the crank organizations which also tell us that tabacco is good for you before you can find such a group.
Please spend some time with a list of logical fallacies before continuing this debate. It will be beneficial to the conversation. Thanks.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ 
