Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

==FALSE ACCUSATIONS== In the first place I must defend my conduct against PRO's accusation of braking rules. In C2 I did not accuse author of PRO's source of being corrupted or funded by group of interest. In fact I assume he had the best intentions. I just pointed out that his opinion based on his source of „NASA analysis" cannot be considered a scientifically relevant evaluation of method (in 2006) that would refute (2009) evaluation by a team including scientists and especially statisticians. This is clearly not a break of rules! ==Catch 22== When I try to cover all arguments with relevant facts from sources, PRO asks to elaborate in detail (which is in sources) despite my lack of space. If I elaborate in detail, PRO say I dropped some arguments. On top of that he makes me waste more of my precious space as he ignores my sources and misinterprets my arguments and forces me to clarify things over and over again. ==CRIME AND PUNISHMENT== PRO's reliance on "scientific consensus", and generally bad conduct towards sources on both sides will not pay off. If he just accepted minor defeat, he would have saved at least some ground. But his contempt towards "dissenting scientists" made me want to deliver some funny "slap in the face" to his argument and it made me look for more information once again. What I found is a Coup de Grace to his consensus argument which is a cornerstone in his crumbling defense. [23] describes how the 97% consensus was created. When I wrote: "Consensus can be easily crafted by selection of sources...", I didn't even imagined to what extent. [23] say that the study on which the consensus is based asked 10257 scientists, 3146 bothered to reply and 79 were chosen to create 97% "consensus". So out of 3146 scientist, we are sure that 2.38% surely accept AGW and out 10257 scientists asked its 0.73%. Funny when you compare it to 31487 scientists just from USA who signed petition against GW alarmism. But what about the institutions like IPCC, NASA, NOAA..? Well, [24] sums quotations of (sometimes former) IPCC members, NASA scientists and NOAA scientists as well as some other eminent scientists: "First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody tell you there is." Dr. CharlesWax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it"seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, NOAA. DR. PATRICK J.MICHAELS, UN IPCC expert reviewer, former Virginia State Climatologist, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist.... It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." Hungarian scientist, DR. FERENC MISKOLCZI, an atmospheric physicist with NASA. Dr. Miskolczi resigned his post over the agency's lack of scientific freedom. "My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results." "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations." UN IPCC Japanese Scientist DR. KIMINORI ITOH, award-winning environmental physical chemist. "The worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." See the source for many, many more. NOTE THAT I DO NOT ACCUSE IPCC, NASA OR NOAA OF BEING CORRUPT, just showing that not all scientist in those institutions agree with official statement and that many can't express their opinion freely. Moreover, I don't intend to use this to discredit claims by these institutions (aside of consensus). ==POINT COUNTER POINT== Call me a sadist, but I have not finished with PRO's claims yet. Lets have fun. I never claimed that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.39 ï¿½C but that it is a maximum under extremely generous assumptions. I never claimed NOAA supports this conclusion, but that it was independent study based on NOAA's data. As alarmists will never stop their necromancy in summoning the mighty undead "Hockey stick" and PRO sees no point in "trading studies back and forth all the day" no matter what professional statisticians and numerous scientists all over the world say, I will add just this: PRO must then assume, that those poor Vikings who arrived to Greenland during MWP must have been so frozen to the bone, that they had hallucinations seeing green fertile land where were just barren plains of ice. Where PRO tries to hide behind fact that solar irradiance alone couldn't cause whole 0.5 ï¿½C increase in mean global temperature, he again totally ignores Svensmark hypothesis. Creationist analogy is a huge backfire to PRO. We don't know or don't want to know what caused recent natural warming (created life on earth) so we believe it must have been the all-mighty CO2 (the God). PRO gives us a source of claim of water vapor positive feedback. It cites Andy Dassler, which is source I provided and showed that it was refuted by Roy W. Spencer: "The other half of the feedback story which Dessler et al did not address is the reflected solar component." We all know that clouds cool earth during day and warm it during night. Its just negative feedback to temperature changes up and down to put it simply. When it comes to "carbon sinks" PRO again fails to see the implications of different processes and to check the source. The whole bogus around "sinks" is just that IPCC assumed the life cycle of CO2 in atmosphere is 10 times the amount of what geologists say [16]. When they found out that all the CO2 increase they predicted is gone, they assumed it must have all gone into ocean and came with bright idea that ocean is somewhat full of CO2 just now and it changes everything. WOW. Well, the ocean captured and released CO2 all the history. Lately solubility was decreased VERY slightly by rising temperature and increased due to increasing pressure of CO2 simultaneously. No drama... ==THE GRAND FINALE== PRO fails when working with sources. He fails to conclude implications made by arguments. Sometimes it looks like he is rather debating his illusion of skeptics then me. When he claims he defended his arguments he reminds me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information during the siege of Baghdad. Unfortunately for him, this simply didn't work. I don't intend to suggest voters what the should vote for. Instead I will recommend to look at the sources. I found there a lot of interesting information. I will finish with quote from one of few top political dissenters on the side of skeptical science, Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is unfair to refer to the United Nations panel. IPCC is not a scientific body: it's a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavor." ==THE LAST FAREWELL== Despite my harsh criticism I praise the effort PRO put into this debate and I thank him for his time. I had fun and I hope he too. ==SOURCES== [23] Climate „consesus" opiate: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... [24] UN scientists speak out...: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... ==CREDIT TO NAMES OF CHAPTERS== I used names of novels of Alan Jackobson, Joseph Heller, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Aldous Huxley Janet Evanovich and Philip McCutchan to add a little bit of fun and drama.