Saturday, December 29, 2012

The Marxist roots of the global warming scare. . .

I came across an article that reminded me of how twisted some folks thinking has gotten.

June 16, 2008
The Marxist roots of the global warming scare

By Wes Vernon ~

The late Natalie Grant Wraga once wrote, "Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. 

Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. 

It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values...

{... and so on and so forth for another 1400 contrived words.}


What a strange read it was.  
Not one word could be found about our dependence on a healthy environment.         ;\ 

Wes' article begs some questions . . . 
For instance, are these folks even aware of our dependence on things like farming... safe transportation... shelter... for living an enjoyable few years on this planet ?

Have folks like Wraga, Vernon and like-minded no conception for how dependent those necessities are on a healthy environment along with relatively benign and predictable weather patterns ?

How can folks like Wraga, Vernon and like-minded remain dismissive of all the Earth Observations supporting the established science regarding how our atmosphere operates ?   Have they no appreciation that our society has been conducting a Grand Geophysical Experiment by super-charging our planet's thin atmosphere's "Greenhouse Gas" component ?  An honest appraisal of the science and observations is clear, this is for real and the problem is not going away.

How do folks like Wraga, Vernon and like-minded come up such paranoid hysteria equating a nurturing, husbanding approach to our "environment" with ruining our economy ?   {That's not to say some environmentalists don't have some foolish ideas, but that's were communication and cooperation between a wide spectrum of knowledge and experiences comes into play... all sides must work together to confront these challenges.}

How can folks like Wraga, Vernon and like-minded be so glib and ignorant of the fact that radical environmental upheavals bring with them radical disruption and destruction for the established systems ?  {Sure systems recover, but those recoveries operate on timescales of thousands of years... too slow for our kids.}

Do folks like Wraga, Vernon and like-minded have any understanding for the long evolution behind the creation of our historic climate and how special that balance was ?  {Sure climate changes, but it also spent the past four billion years steadily achieving a certain level of refinement and balance that is sure not to last.  
Why must we disrupt it with such speed and abandon ?}

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Y-Axis of Evil

This post is interesting on two levels.  

The most important is how well Rob Honeycutt explains a recent denialist meme and how it manipulates and misrepresents temperature graphs and science.  

The second reason is sort of gossipy but worth sharing just the same.  You see in the comments section some of Anthony's Watt'sUpWithThat tactics are exposed.  Considering I'm familiar with this "Smokey" character, a WUWT regular - I found it interesting and worth sharing that he's been outted as a WUWT sock-puppet.                                                                                                                                         

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

IPCC climate report leaked - Alec Rawls et al. claim evidence of fraud

I want to share parts of a conversation at a climate discussion board I visit.  
It about Alec Rawls leaked IPCC draft of their upcoming report.  That part don't bug me near as much as the way Alec has cherry picked and manipulated what the report actually said, in order to manufacture a science fiction story.

He is trying to make a case that the IPCC is hiding information about solar impacts on Earth's climate and global warming.  But the boy is way off the mark as learning more about the story and the science makes clear.

It's sadly another example of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) denialist's tunnel vision attitude towards our life supporting biosphere. 

Alec Rawl has posted the IPCC report here

In any event, I feel like sharing the following thoughts. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

CC wrote:  Now, for those interested in more than a contrarian's fabrication here's a little background on what the IPCC actually said. 
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate changeA draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.{please do link and read on}"

~ ~ ~ 
IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change 
". . . What's more, this conclusion is stated in the leaked IPCC report, just a few paragraphs later:
". . . Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle  in any climatically significant way..." 
"When Sherwood was asked on ABC whether Rawls' argument was a "case of cherry-picking a sentence", he replied:
"Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.""

~ ~ ~ 
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

contrarian wrote:   I'm just going to go ahead and ignore this assessment just like I ignore all their other assessments.  I think the IPCC is incapable of coming to a correct conclusion.  It is science by politicians for politicians.

That the leaked assessment contradicts their other [ludicrous] reports is certainly amusing--and I do enjoy a red-faced politician--but it doesn't change my opinion of chicken-little's in general.

Funny: yes.
Serious Science: hardly.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SS quoting CC:  Why would questioning the reputability of "stopgreensuicide" mean that the documents are forgeries?

SS wrote:  It doesn't necessarily mean that, and it's why I asked if he was implying it. I think that if they were forgeries or had been altered, the fact that it was a forgery would already be made public by all those others who have official access (who by tacit admission tell us that it is real) 

SS quoting CC:  I would suggest it has much more to do with questioning "stopgreensuicide's" agenda.

SS wrote:  Right.I don't see where that gets you, though. If the release is real, then the are a good subject, regardless of your opinion about other people's agendas.

SS quoting CC:  SS, the problem comes in with the agenda driven misrepresentations based on selective cherry picking and ruthless manipulation of source materials with the intention of manufacturing political bludgeons.

SS wrote:  Well, you have a strong political drive which infects what you do and what you write. You bludgeon right wingers, Republicans, religious people, elderly people, if they get in your way by opposing any detail of your narrative. Even if they are not around you bludgeon them for good measure in passing..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC wrote:  Yea, you wanna play coy.  wink, wink...

Besides, I'm not referring to anything specific you've written, I'm talking about the entire ilk of stories you bring to this board.  As for this particular thread...

WUWT pronounces:  "Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates ..."

It's become the grand meme du jour, desperately seeking to keep attention away from the more impactful consequences of the incredible amounts of greenhouse gases our society is injecting into our thin atmosphere.  The stuff that we have some control over.  But NO instead you {that is the collective echo-chamber you} want to continue wasting precious irretrievable time with such contemptible crap.   

Yes the sun and cosmic energy interactions with Earth's atmosphere, the science is an exciting area, but we know that these unknowns are dwarfed by the known impacts of greenhouse gases!

SS you continue to blithely play such games.  Like I said before I'm sure you're plenty smart enough to appreciate how disingenuous trying to overplay the sun's impact, while willfully ignoring greenhouse gases' impact is.  But still you give aid and comfort to those folks and that game.

Why do you ignore the further background information that puts all of this into perspective?

You say I have an agenda, well damn straight, that agenda is trying to get folks to start to seriously think and learn about their planet and biosphere!  Trying to understand that global heat distribution engine our society depends upon.  Along with appreciating how extreme our impacts have become.  To learn with honest curiosity.  That's my agenda, what's wrong with that? 

But, given your various posts and comments it seems like you couldn't care less about the health of the biosphere of this planet and maybe even can't comprehend that concept.  How does that thinking work?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Incidentally, here's a homework assignment:   
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change   

A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.  
{please do link and read on}"

~ ~ ~ 

IPCC draft report published online - suggests that the sun is not behind climate change

". . . What's more, this conclusion is stated in the leaked IPCC report, just a few paragraphs later:

". . . Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle  in any climatically significant way..."

"When Sherwood was asked on ABC whether Rawls' argument was a "case of cherry-picking a sentence", he replied:

"Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.""
~ ~ ~ 
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Monday, December 10, 2012

Open letter to Dan Pangburn, et al. Re: "Historical Data on Global Warming..."

Open letter to Dan Pangburn 
Regarding your "Historical Data on Global Warming provided by U.S. Government Agencies" op-ed"

Dear Dan Pangburn, 
You've written to me over at my and offered links to your work.  I have read more of your blogs and posts and various comments around the web.  Well, it's fired me up with a desire to write you a letter asking some heart to heart questions and sharing my perspective with you and your compatriots.  I'm doing it here because WUWTW seemed a more appropriate location.

I'll base my letter on that piece you keep plugging, your March 15, 2008 op-ed:

"Historical Data on Global Warming provided by U.S. Government Agencies"

I will include your direct quotes from that paper followed by comments and further links to sources that support my arguments.

You write:  "I have been researching the global warming issue for months. I am a licensed Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. The following is a brief verbal description of some of my sources and findings with graphics that show these findings..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

First off, what's up with that title?  

It's sweeping and somehow authoritative sounding, as if it originated in a government office.  Why did you choose to give it that semi-official sounding name?

Then consider how you establish your authority.  
You seem to believe that as a mechanical engineer you've got the background to master climatology with a few months of personal study.  As if that lends you the genius to leapfrog scientists who have spent many years studying and mastering this topic.  

Aren't you claiming a bit too much?  What about those experts who have spent years wrestling with the formulas, data, models and their complexities?

How does mechanical engineering prepare you to understand the natural world?  
Your world of buildings and bridges and mechanical forces is filled with the laws of physics in their most simplified form.  It's a world full of constraints and absolutes - whereas our planet's natural systems work on an altogether different level.

How is it that after a few months of study you feel qualified to so absolutely dismiss long standing "consensus" science and practice?  You complain about papers not being accepted for publication.

What that lot of unpublished papers that were basically substandard?  Ds and Fs so to speak...  why should seriously flawed papers deserve to be published? 

Even from reading your replies at various discussions you reply to knowledgeable folks and their critiques... it seems evasive and willfully ignoring significant complaints. 

I wonder, can you explain the difference between mechanical and Earth studies?
I'm serious, can you come up with a short descriptive comparison?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You write:  "The assertion that humans have or ever can have a significant influence on climate such as by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

What does this mean?  The human population has never been as large or resource consuming as today - so of course, there are no historical comparisons.  

Do you seriously question whether humans can have a significant influence? - please explain that.

What about the evidence that humans have become a unprecedented major geologic force on this planet?  Centuries of struggling to tame and subdue the biosphere have succeeded with a vengeance... don't you think?

I'll be honest with you, to me, believing humans can't possibly have major global impacts makes as much sense as believing our universe was formed 6 thousand years ago in one frenzied week... oh yea, silly me, half the US population does believe that god created Earth in a week long frenzy.

~ ~ ~

For those who are curious human impacts the evidence overwhelming, here's a sampling:

Dawn of the Anthropocene Epoch? Earth Has Entered New Age of Geological Time, Experts Say
Mar. 26, 2010 — Geologists from the University of Leicester are among four scientists- including a Nobel prize-winner -- who suggest that Earth has entered a new age of geological time.
~ ~ ~

Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a New Global Ethos
Paul J. Crutzen and Christian Schägerl
~ ~ ~

A man-made world -
Science is recognising humans as a geological force to be reckoned with. 
~ ~ ~ 

A Global Map of Human Impacts to Marine Ecosystems
~ ~ ~

A major international conference focusing on solutions to the global sustainability challenge.

~ ~ ~ 

As you can see, honest curiosity and a sincere effort reveals a plethora of evidence of human's major disruptive impacts upon our planet.  There's much more out there then I'll ever have the time to dig up.

Faith can't erase that reality.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You write:  "The temperature1 has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere2 exhibits a smooth progressive rise. Note on this graph that prior to about 1910, and again from 1944 to about 1976, temperature showed a decreasing trend while atmospheric carbon dioxide level was increasing. . . "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You are deliberately misrepresenting the science.  For a more complete treatment view these examples:

What caused early 20th Century warming?

IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
2.2 Drivers of climate change

You also confuse "Trend and variation," 
here's a simple video explaining what you've omitted:

"Trend and variation"
Uploaded by TeddyTVNorge on Jan 4, 2012

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You write:  "In the previous graph it appears that since 1976 the increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the average global temperature to rise. However, a close look at the graph below reveals the fact that, typically in the past, global average temperature rose or fell before the carbon dioxide level changed."  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dan you ignore too much of the story.  What about this information:

CO2:  The Biggest Control Knob on Earth's Thermostat  
Professor Richard Alley
~ ~ ~
Ben Santer: Crushing the Myth of Global Cooling
(considering signal and noise)
~ ~ ~
(CO2) A Natural By-Product of Nature

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You write:  "This graph shows that the average global temperature 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and the recent rate of temperature change is not unusual."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That graph does not represent the global temperature, nor does any one graph definitively do that.  They are building blocks of learning.  Why are you ignoring the accumulated knowledge scientists have built up regarding the MWP and other temperature fluctuation over the past thousands of years?  

Do a search for "Medieval Warm Period" over at (that internet repository of climate science papers), the list of informative information is impressive and clearly shows that temperature fluctuations are considered and understood.

Results "Medieval Warm Period"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You write:  "For most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present8,9. The planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago10 when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times higher than now.The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change." 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

What a sad, even pathetic, deception you are playing here.  It's worth repeating, no climatologist has ever claimed CO2 was the driving factor in every climate swing Earth has experienced !

Comparing today's globe and biosphere with what existed 440 million years ago is as disingenuous as it gets.  

You willfully ignore that our global heat distribution engine is a product of evolution and that it has reached a special sweet spot during the recent geologic era.  One that has been most conducive to society's development; one that we are dependent on; one deserving of much respect and appreciation.  After all our society is dependent on predicable stable weather conditions.
~ ~ ~

YouTube's "ThinkAboutIt" has put together an excellent < 8 minute video reviewing the past 600 million years of our climate's evolution.  It valuable information presented in a timeline fashion and filled with fascinating details you seem obvious to.

Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes 
(The last 600 Million years of our climate's evolution in 7 minutes)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

You write:  "Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity. These actions put freedom and prosperity at risk. "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You reveal your agenda... and it doesn't sound like its got anything to do with understanding our planet.  I'm thinking you are one of those folks committed to that "free-corporate-market" philosophy, more interested in retaining assets and power than understanding how our planet behaves.

You talk of "freedom and prosperity" but ignore how dependent every aspect of our society is on stable reliable weather patterns.  The very thing our rampant ever increasing CO2 injections into our thin atmosphere is promising to disrupt.

Have you seriously considered you might be wrong and this course you are advocating, of ignoring Earth Observation evidence and expert opinions, will prove destructive to our younger generations?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Mr. Pangburn,  I wonder what you think of Spencer Weart's words in his essay:

Guest commentary by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics
"I often get emails from scientifically trained people who are looking for a straightforward calculation of the global warming that greenhouse gas emissions will bring. What are the physics equations and data on gases that predict just how far the temperature will rise? A natural question, when public expositions of the greenhouse effect usually present it as a matter of elementary physics. These people, typically senior engineers, get suspicious when experts seem to evade their question. Some try to work out the answer themselves (Lord Monckton for example) and complain that the experts dismiss their beautiful logic.
The engineers’ demand that the case for dangerous global warming be proved with a page or so of equations does sound reasonable, and it has a long history. The history reveals how the nature of the climate system inevitably betrays a lover of simple answers. . . link"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully. . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Basic Radiation CalculationsThe foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere. At first this foundation was so shaky that nobody could trust the results. With the coming of digital computers and better data, scientists gradually worked through the intricate technical problems. A rough idea was available by the mid 1960s, and by the late 1970s, the calculations looked solid — for idealized cases. Much remained to be done to account for all the important real-world factors, especially the physics of clouds. (This genre of one-dimensional and two-dimensional models lay between the rudimentary, often qualitative models covered in the essay on Simple Models of Climate and the elaborate three-dimensional General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Warning: this is the most technical of all the essays. K
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Right Wing folk hero Lord Monckton thrown out of Doha climate talks

Ukip's Lord Monckton thrown out of Doha climate talks

For those interesting in more information regarding Mr. Monckton may I recommend some further resources:

Thursday, December 6, 2012

WUWT: ‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again...

I know people who seriously claim that Watts Up With That is a scientifically informative website.  
So why then does Anthony Watts post stuff like this thing?  It's authored by none other than the grand Lord of contrarian political performance artists Lord C. Monckton of Benchley.

What he wrote was so plainly deceptive I felt compelled to reprint it along with appropriate informational links to help clear through his smoke and mirrors.

As for Monckton's over the top complaints about, why shouldn't people try to gather as much information as possible?  SkepticalScience is a repository for the growing body of climate related science publications.  It's there for easy public access.  And those folks certainly don't deserve the kind of attacks they have been enduring lately.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a IPCC hoax

Well, at least that's the message one comes across too often, as Dan Pangburn recently reminded me (over here).  Thus I found it serendipitous that SkS posted the following article.

You see, Skeptical Science has put together a list of leading Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists acknowledging the physical reality of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  It's an interesting round up and seems to fit right into the theme of this blog.  

I am again indebted to John Cook and the other volunteer authors over at for their permission to reprint this article.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club (via Skeptical Science)
Posted on 5 December 2012 by Daniel Bailey The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.  We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees…

Sunday, November 18, 2012

"Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology" and the IPCC - thoughts to consider

I came across this article by Chris Colose, a PhD student in an Atmospheric Science program.  It's two years old, but than Judith Curry has been attacking the IPCC for a while now.  The article does a excellent job of outlining the flaws in Judith's assertion and anyone interested in a clearer understanding of the real story behind the IPCC would benefit from reading: "Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology"  

Chris Colose has given me permission to reprint his entire article.  

I have added some web links, highlights and sentence breaks where I thought they were appropriate - text remains unaltered.   {11/23/12}

Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology
Posted on November 9, 2010 | by Chris Colose

What's Up With That IPCC... no consensus on consensus ???

I'm confounded by the way people swallow Curry, Anthony et al. slanders of the IPCC.   You see, it's one thing to take issue with a study or statement but to misrepresent and then paint this organization into that villainous characterature they have done is ridiculous... no, it's plain dishonest.  Chris Colose wrote a good two-thousand word essay a couple years back that remains as valid today as it was then, here's an except:
". . . I think there’s a lot of misconception on this issue and I see no evidence that Judith is thinking clearly with respect to her claims about the IPCC. Much of the debate has centered around semantics and definitions, so I want to start off with what many people take as “sides” to the debate, particularly when saying things like “the IPCC view” or identifying what a “skeptic” means. Much of the confusion is centered directly on how the scientific community comes to acquire knowledge on a specific topic, or how knowledge of global climate change has evolved. 
The fourth assessment report of the IPCC consisted of three volumes of work, on the scale of ~1000 pages each, with the goal of summarizing research in the areas of the physical science, impacts, and policy of climate change. The AR4 does not represent original research, and so to begin with what Judith and other commenter’s refer to as the “IPCC view” is in reality the aggregate work done by the community in whatever sub-topic is being discussed, expressed as a summary of the “balance of evidence.”

Saturday, November 17, 2012

The IPCC's consensus conspiracy

In light of my little visit with Curry's Blog and sort of keeping up on the endless dog-chasing-tail talking going on over there I'm reminded that stuff like this review of scientific consensus doesn't get around the circuit near enough. ~ ~ ~ So I will make my futile attempt to bring it Back Down to Earth by sharing this write up by James Powell. It's posted at but they are kind enough to allow for sharing. ====================================================================== Courtesy of ======================================================================
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart (via Desmogblog)

This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.* Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion…

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Educational Climate Science videos of Peter Hadfield

I just posted this over at my Citizenschallenge blogspot, but considering the denial of information that skeptics are guilty of I've decided to also post it over here.  It's for folks who are interested in learning more.  It is true that Hadfield get's attacked by some skeptics, er denialist - but the proof is in the pudding and if you follow up on the authoritative sources upon which Hadfield reports, you will find that he is true to the data and has much to share.

While "skeptical" websites such as Curry's blog, or WUWT, or ClimateAudit, et al. spend endless hours side tracking the real issues and making mountains out of moles, in order to shield themselves for the full spectrum of Earth observation evidence ~ Hadfield's series explains the various aspects of our global heat distribution engine and why we as a people should be taking the scientists' consensus seriously. 

  And since I have some free time, I figured why not put together an index of Peter Hadfield's video series ~ it does an excellent job of reviewing what the scientific "consensus" on Climate Change is all about.

Grab the popcorn and sit down for some easy learning.   ;-)

Potholer Climate videos

Uploaded by potholer54 
Peter Hadfield 

2. Climate Change -- the objections 
by potholer54 ~ 7:25 

11a. Sources for my last video 
by potholer54 ~ 9:25 

14 - BP oil spills and an end to snow 
by potholer54 ~ 14:34 

Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity 
by potholer54 ~ 15:24 


This has been all about Peter Hadfield but I shouldn't ignore Peter Sinclair, aka Greenman3610, and his top notch coverage of the AGW "debate"... story...

Greenman3610 ~ Climate Denial Crock of the Week 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Peter Sinclair interviews Peter Hadfield
Potholer54/Greenman3610 - The Search for Lord Monckton


A little deep background is also valuable.
Here is an interesting series that introduces one to Earth as a dynamic entity.  Incidentally, I believe it's impossible to appreciation AGW without appreciating the evolution of climate.

How the Earth Made Us
Professor Iain Stewart
BBC documentary