Global Warming

Oh. Well in that case, my humblest apologies.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-89-9-1325.pdf

Most climatologists (sans Phil Jones and some of his CRU associates?) agree that global warming is happening, and that it is probably man-made. The trends of global warming do display a notable correlation with the amount of solar radiation and its band (spectral) distribution[1]. Thus, the latter conclusion about man playing a significant role in making, or ever having made matters worse is not fully validated.

The thing is, none of that really matters. Since no climatic model can currently represent all of the relevant variables, the only responsible thing to do is to take action against global warming. If we end up taking action in vain, another global depression may ensue. If we don't take action yet (man-made) global warming becomes unstoppable, Earth may become the next Venus.

On a related note, I wonder how far-reaching the consequences of the CRU leak will become. After all, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a small cabal of climatologists have sought to control the overall agenda to increase and gain funding beyond that which could have been previously expected:

http://www.aei.org/article/101395

Props on finding a speciously more credible source (AEI), something Adrenachrome was not able to do. I must concede that a noticeable minority of scientists have a dissenting opinion concerning anthropogenic global warming. That said, many of the dissenting scientists are in the pockets of the oil companies. You will find a much smaller percentage of scientists dissenting from the consensus at independent institutes of study.

I feel obliged to point out that AEI is funded by two multi-billion dollar oil corporations, Koch industries and Gulf oil, and is a conservative think tank. It has essentially bribed scientists with $10,000+ to critique the IPCC's assessment of the current climate situation; an assessment that is in accordance with the scientific consensus. Furthermore, Hayward is a frequent contributor to AEI. If AEI were truly an unbiased source then the vast majority of the literature there would be in support of global warming. I would challenge you to find one article there espousing that view.

Also, Combinatus, Newsweek essentially retracted the article you posted above claiming "that it was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future."

I feel obliged to point out that AEI is funded by two multi-billion dollar oil corporations, Koch industries and Gulf oil, and is a conservative think tank. It has essentially bribed scientists with $10,000+ to critique the IPCC's assessment of the current climate situation; an assessment that is in accordance with the scientific consensus. Furthermore, Hayward is a frequent contributor to AEI. If AEI were truly an unbiased source then the vast majority of the literature there would be in support of global warming. I would challenge you to find one article there espousing that view.

According to the most recent annual report on the AEI website the sources of revenue were:

36% Individuals
27% Conferences, Book Sales and other revenues
21% Corporations
16% Foundations

I think the above values are from their 2007 report since I could not find their 2008 report. So if 2007 is a typical year then corporate donations appear to be 21% of their revenue. However it is possible that some conference attendees were employees of corporations and had their conferences fees paid or reimbursed by their employers. Thus the revenue from corporations might be more than 21% but how much more is difficult to tell based on the information I have found. I am not an AEI supporter or defender but I do think if we criticize AEI then the criticism should be based on presenting the information. And I do think AEI should be criticized; just like I think the ExxonMobil, the IPCC, the UN, the local knitting club and every other organization should be criticized. No sacred cows and no free rides.

Now to the broader issue of funding and research. It is often implied indirectly or said explicitly that individuals and groups will bias their research and reporting based on their funding. Given what we know of humans this would not surprise me. However I suggest that we need to avoid automatically discrediting something just based on funding since it is possible for accurate research to be funded by a source with a vested interest just as it is possible for inaccurate research. I am not saying the outcomes are equally likely; I am just saying both are possible.

I would also caution people who continue using funding source as a basis of criticism that this is can boomerang. Consider the various governments, companies, foundations and other sources who claim that global warming is a serious, imminent, human caused threat. If the amount that they put into funding exceeds the amount put in by ExxonMobil and similar companies then the funding argument can backfire.

I mention all of this because I really think we need to de-politicize the entire discussion and have an open and transparent discussion with all of the raw data, the research methods, the assumptions, everything placed for all to easily and freely see and evaluate.

So for example how about reading the article (http://www.aei.org/article/101395) and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it is published. I have read the article. Most of what I read in the article are things I had seen elsewhere, although the part of the article about improving IPCC and improving climate research might be interesting. However, more in-depth analysis is needed for those proposals.