Now, if you want to know what NASA’s climate scientists say about warming trends, 13 years after addressing the problem of whether certain methods of measurement were accurate enough to deliver reliable data (the report you cite from 1997 explored not whether surface temperature measurements were accurate, but whether satellite temperature measurements were accurate), you need to read the latest research: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

In fact, NASA finds a marked upward trend in global average temperature. Regarding El Niño, there is recognition that the “unusually high temperatures” for 1998 might be in part attributable to that phenomenon, but El Niño shifts weather patterns within a specific latitudinal range, and does not explain long-term global trends in average temperature.

The NASA report from 21 Jan. 2010 reads:

“A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

‘In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn’t stopped global warming from continuing,’ said Hansen.

Small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols can also affect the climate. Volcanoes are powerful sources of sulfate aerosols that counteract global warming by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. In the past, large eruptions at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines and El Chichón in Mexico have caused global dips in surface temperature of as much as 0.3°C (0.54°F). But volcanic eruptions in 2009 have not had a significant impact.”

NASA also specifies that in fact the period 2000 to 2009 (not part of your 1997 report) is clearly the warmest decade on record.

Your second point is covered by NASA’s data in response to the first. The truth is that the ONLY extant data on whether global average temperatures have changed during the recent solar cycle minimum show that in fact WARMING CONTINUED virtually unabated.

Your third point is a flawed rhetorical inversion; that solar activity assessment methods do not have a long-enough history is a factor, because they attempt to measure the specific relationship of activity on a distant celestial body, with no hard surface where history can be explored or traced. We have no way of determining what the solar history in relation to these measurements was.

Therefore, your attempted inversion —”the evidence of the newly proclaimed anthropomorphic global warming does not have a long enough history to accurately determine any long-term relationship to Earth climate”— does not work, because the Earth does have a hard surface, with hundreds of millions of years of climate information recorded in its geological record. Ice and sediment, organic matter and the fossil record, all show us information about the make-up of past climate patterns and even average temperature ranges for specific regions, based on things like the distribution of flora and fauna during a given period in the geological record.

(By the way, the term “anthropomorphic” means “in the form of human beings”. It refers to when we see an object as having human qualities, like assigning the value of “face” to a car because of the layout of its headlights and grill, or when we assign to animals virtues and abilities we value in human beings. The term is used by some climate skeptics either out of ignorance or as a way of making the mainstream climate consensus sound foolish. The proper term is “anthropogenic”, meaning “caused by human beings”.)

Your fourth point, another flawed rhetorical inversion, also does not work, because it ignores the rhetorical premise of what it seeks to invert. There is a fundamental difference between mainstream climate science and the logical leap involved in the alternative theories you cite. The difference is that mainstream climate science is based on the established evidentiary history of climate modeling, temperature study, physics, meteorology and geology. It is a vast, interdisciplinary terrain of fact and evidence, and leaves little room for interpretation or guesswork. The solar cycle critique you cite has already been shown to NOT illustrate what you and some scientists say it might illustrate, and the critique is based wholly on the assumption, entirely in the realm of theory and untested, that reduced sunspot activity means cooler temperatures on the surface of the Earth.

The only reliable evidentiary measure of this claim is NASA’s modeling mostly over the last 10 years, after the 1997 report you cited as having some bearing on satellite temperature measures, and what NASA ACTUALLY FOUND during the last ten years is that the solar cycle minimum might reduce global average temperatures by 0.1ºC (in a decade when global average temperatures have risen “to the highest levels ever recorded”, according to NASA’s research.

What does NASA satellite data tell us? “Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity. “ http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm .
2. “…even as the intensity of solar activity has dipped, the warming trend has continued,”

These statements are categorically untrue! Even Professor Phil Jones disagrees with this statement. “He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

You also state:
3. “…the evidence of newly sensitive solar activity assessment methods does not have a long enough history to accurately determine any long-term relationship to Earth climate.”

Let me re-phrase this… …the evidence of the newly proclaimed anthropomorphic global warming does not have a long enough history to accurately determine any long-term relationship to Earth climate.

AND:
4. There is a logical leap involved in much of what is claimed about the link between solar activity and climate; until that logical leap is narrowed to evidentiary verifiability, the global scientific consensus will not treat the claims you cite as truly scientific.

May I re-phrase this… There is a logical leap involved in much of what is claimed about the link between anthropomorphic global warming (i.e. man-made increases in CO2 production) and climate; until that logical leap is narrowed to evidentiary verifiability, the global scientific consensus will not treat the claims you cite as truly scientific.

You should pay attention to what scientists are saying, http://www.solarstorms.org/SClimate.html

If you believe that there is a scientific consensus on global warming, you must not be aware of the growing number of scientists that disagree with the theory of anthropomorphic global warming.

There is no evidence of any global cooling; quite the opposite, the warming trend is the most pronounced and consistent seen in recorded history. Our information about previous warming and cooling cycles is largely geological. We can trace what took place, but our evidence for what took place in previous warming and cooling cycles is not adequate to determine scientifically a specific involvement of solar cycles, sunspots and solar radiation releases, in altering global climate patterns.

What’s more, solar activity science tends to focus more on the relationship of solar cycles to electromagnetic fields than to climate directly. There is a logical leap involved in much of what is claimed about the link between solar activity and climate; until that logical leap is narrowed to evidentiary verifiability, the global scientific consensus will not treat the claims you cite as truly scientific.

Solar cycles are 11 years in length, but the climate warming trend does not follow that cycle, and even as the intensity of solar activity has dipped, the warming trend has continued, raising very strong doubts about the veracity of the claim that the Earth warms and cools according to the solar cycle: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fk3Hsfyj

Re RADIOSPU: Some climate theorists have suggested that where there has been snow in the past, it would cease to exist, which may hold true, over the long term (talking decades or even centuries) for some regions. It is foolish for climate scientists to make the claim that local weather is the proof of global climate change, just as it is foolish to say that local weather disproves climate change… there is, however, a caveat: in certain cases, fundamental changes in regional or even local climate make-up can show evidence of a pervasive global trend, but the science has to be there.

So, yes you can “have it both ways”, if by that you mean can warming cause intense cold and can both snow and the absence of snow be signs of pervasive climate change. But no, you cannot suggest warming must and will lead to specific local weather events; climate science is not predictive in that way, but it can show clear scientific evidence for fundamental changes in the ingredients that make up actual climate patterns.

So is it only Gloabl Warming believers that can use weather to prove (“predicted proof”) climate change? Do you know how silly your last paragraph reads? You cannot prove Global Warming with weather either.

Computer models cannot predict 10 days of weather let alone 10 years of climate. The “proof” will be reviewing the data after it has occurred. The last 15 years show the climate cooling – that’s better proof than weather, don’t you think?

Can’t we just agree that realistic measures should be taken by ALL parties to control waste (and I’m not talking about CO2 here) and uses of resourses?

Respectfully Submitted.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by alildabwilldoya: Great article, summary 2 b posted on my blog http://bit.ly/7JCWgQ...

Please, for all commenters, try to avoid aggressive ad hominem attacks or overtly hostile rhetoric.

To MRJBROOKS: You both have a point and are partly mistaken. The specific ruling was not overturned, but the spirit of that ruling was re-interpreted. Whereas the 100-year-old precedent bars unlimited contributions directly to political campaigns, this ruling questions the authority of the Congress to restrict corporate spending on advocacy for campaigns… by allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for or against both issues and even specific candidates, the new ruling rejects what has been the consistently reliable interpretation of that precedent: that corporations cannot freely spend to influence elections.

Republicans are saints in the eyes of our MSM.

As for obstuctionist, what else can you call the enormous rise in the use of filibuster by Republicans since they lost power?

“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor on December 20, 2009. “Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body.

I understand the frustrations of everyone who wanted Obama to fix the world in 365 days, but I do NOT understand how anyone could be so illogical to think that Obama is an evil person bent on the destruction of this country.

There are people who vote for people that call themselves conservatives but really what you get is a bunch of theocrats who try to consolidate money and power to an elite group of ideological zealots who are willing to commit intense acts of hypocrisy simply to feel as if they have “won”, like it’s all some kind of game.

These toe tapping tools will stop at nothing to force your children learn myth in science classrooms such as ID or that the Earth was made 6000 years ago. These fake so called Republicans will vow that gays should not be able to live as non-gays do in our country, while simultaneously being gay in the closet. These people like to hate things. Fighting is what feels normal. These people are angry and angry people are easily exploited.

If you prefer a government that governs the least that’s exactly what you are going to get. I don’t believe there can be an intelligent debate with toe tapping Republican propagandist hacks. Hacks don’t want to talk, they just want to be mad about something and government is an easy target. During the Bush days, the hacks were mad at Saddam, for the wrong reasons but it didn’t stop them from exploiting the people into supporting a two trillion dollar tax payer funded unjust war did it? 4000 Americans and 50,000 (and counting) innocent Iraqi civilians died. Republican leaders said, “hey be mad at this”, now they are saying, “hey be mad at this”.

The fatalistic tragedians of our nation fall in line. No one said Americans have any patience. We want to be right all the time. The only thing we are conservative with is the use of our intelligence and the application of ethics.

one is a law, rule or regulation, the other is usually a military explosive device

we could use one to curb Shelby, but not the other.

we need to get rid of anonymous holds: make the holders justify their actions, or at least expose the fact that they are responsible.

this is a great example of saying one thing, and doing another, and it lays out the essential paradox of election to national office: the people elect you to do something for them, state or district, specifically. But really, your responsibility is to the country as a whole. If you can do something for your electorate en passant, that’s great, but this is clearly beyond the pale.

he must have an election coming up.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by EzKool: Sen. Richard Shelby Blocks 70 Nominees, Demands Billions in Earmarks – http://bit.ly/cdJOPL #p2 #tcot #gop…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by IndiaCleantech: 2nd Decade of the 21st Century: Denuclearization, Green Tech & Cooperation – CafeSentido.com http://tinyurl.com/ycd72nw...

Now, I’m not any sort of legal scholar, nor do I claim to know the entirety of the issue, but from my understanding, this was a bit of a misstatement by our President. The century-old ruling (I believe about giving directly to a politician running for office) was not overturned, and was not affected. Please do correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe that it only gives corporations the power to give to parties. On the whole, I would tend to agree that Alito probably shouldn’t have reacted the way he did, but at the same time, we should hold our President to a higher standard as well. Keep in mind Alito is human, and when you are called out unexpectedly on national TV and in front of a very divided crowd, especially one that essentially eggs on Mr. Obama’s criticism, one can only expect a bit of a reaction.

Not factual at all, foreign-based corporations are banned from spending money in connection with U.S. elections under another law. See http://fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf read section 441e. So ether Obama lied or doesn’t know election law.