"More than 400 scientists disputed the global warming claims."

Amazing how quickly a lie becomes a fact. Swiftboated like an expert.

SJT,

So, please educate us on what constitutes a scientific fact!

"2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack."

Or it might be further confirmed which would be really bad.

Ender:

A scientific consensus is an oxymoron. What, are your a complete idiot? Nothing posted here has meant anything?

God Help us!

Morano's "400" has nothing to do with science and everything to do with swiftboating, which was apparently invented by Morano. He is so good at it, the "400" scientists is now apparently accepted as fact, even though it is nothing but a lie.

Scientific consensus that's where you ask a computer to reveal the answer to everything. Otherwise known as a complete waste of time.

DMHO

educate yourself.

Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change

Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground

Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate

Chapter 7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry

Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation

Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

SJT: The IPCC is a political body founded by environmentalists. Nothing wrong with that. It employs like-minded scientists to use computer models to back the politicians' claims. Nothing wrong with that, either, IF those who make policy fully understand the implications, which they don't. Then there's something wrong with that.

GCMs do only what they were designed to do: Calculate rises in temperature, in sea level, in precipitation, in drought, in snow, in floods, in pestilence, in heat-related deaths, for a rise in CO2. They do nothing else, but they do what they were designed to do well.

Regards and Happy New Year

SJT
I have read extensively on the whole subject and I am convinced that the weather we are getting is within normal variability. Despite that and also having read many parts of the 3rd AR I will take up your challenge and read the AR4. Briefly my current position is that the overall global temperature has risen since about 1750. There is not a proven connection to CO2 but CO2 levels are going up (0.01% difference in 100 years) and will continue to do so. The solutions offer to counter this rise are a joke. If such a rise means doom then it is coming. I am not convinced of the Camelot idea of past weather it is dead wrong. I think a rise in temperature is a good thing as opposed to a fall going on what I have read of the past. Unfortunately from the Hadley Centre figures we are looking at a fall 1998. I expect there will be those argue it is our fault if it continues fall and talk of a coming ice age.

The IPCC was founded by the World Meteorological Organisation.

The numbers could be quibbled about SJT - they certainly don't all appear to be scientists with relevant qualifications - but the substance of the claim ; experts dissenting from the establishment position , remains correct doesn't it?

Louis - "Nothing posted here has meant anything?"

The day you post something that has scientific merit will be a great day indeed. So far your posts have been completely devoid of anything even approaching science. I do acknowledge that you have managed to see that the greenhouse effect does not mean that scientists think the Earth is covered in glass however progress on other matters like abiotic oil and the functioning of greenhouse gases is still sadly lacking.

We can but hope. BTW how are you doing on the oils are hydrocarbons therefore all hydrocarbons are oil howler you posted.

I suppose mentioning that every word the Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth said about John Kerry has checked out, would be pointless.

Ok never mind.

There you go James, Morano, the manufacturer of facts. He does it very well, I agree.

Terminally deluded.

SJT why do you buy into it? Your boy Errol spent the better part of a week saying there is lab work proving AGW, then couldn't come up with the goods. I suppose you have given simular mental exertions toward finding that lab stuff.
But you couldn't.

Doesn't that tell you something?

As I have asked before, how do you have a rational debate against stupid?

"SJT,

So, please educate us on what constitutes a scientific fact!"

Heat radiates into space?