Daily temperatures are irrelevant, they really are  .   It is the long run temperatures that matter.  I just hate conclusions when Fox News comes on and says the high today is 32 degrees, Where is global warming now!  Heat wave comes through, eh just an ordinary day...  

Guess we will find out in the long run, I really hope we are wrong about global warming though. 

I don't recall it being that cold once this decade. Again that kind of stuff is merely anecdotal but every time it goes below freezing someone will inevitably say "where's all that global warming we keep hearing about".

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

While Michaels doesn't have a spotless record, and now works for the Cato Institute (and thus sits two seats down from Bernie Madoff at Satan's dinner parties), he *was* a research climatologist for nearly three decades. Note he supports AGW in theory, is skeptical of the "consensus" values in terms of severity, and got railroaded out of his faculty positition by the people who whote the CRU emails, often referenced by name.

But of course he's just another annoying crank who knows nothing about climate science, and has never gotten himself published in any sort of peer-reviewed journal.

The scientific consensus that accepts the two premises of AGW, which are that the planet is warming and that warming is *primarily* caused by human activity, is based on the published statements of the following national and international scientific organizations whose overwhelming majority of literally tens of thousands of member scientists agree that AGW is occurring.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

The 32 national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

African Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

World Meteorological Organization

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Society for Microbiology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters

The Wildlife Society (international)

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Medical Association

Australian Medical Association

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

International Association for Great Lakes Research

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

American Association of State Climatologists

American Geological Institute

American Institute of Professional Geologists

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Now if you can explain how a handful of climate scientists control the entire peer reviewed literature of the bulk of the world's scientists then again *perhaps* you may have a point.

I decided to play your game and randomly picked one of the organizations you listed to see what their 'published statement' was on AGW.  I threw a dart & hit the European Science Foundation.

What I could find @ the ESF website:

• No 'published statement' of any sort on AGW and no reference to any sort of position paper on the subject.
• Several generic pages on climate change, each a high-school level regurgitation of basic concepts, with what references to AGW were present solely sourced to IPCC.
• No indication that any sort of 'assessment' of the science was done by ESF other than to agree with it.

If it's there and just buried so deep I'm too dumb to find it, let me know.

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.^[26]

26. European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment - Ecosystems Approach pp. 7-10

Every organization that I listed in reply #432 has a quoted statement along with a footnote reference to the source of the quote.

Thanks for playing.

OK I found it. The precise quote is from page 5 of the document which is actually on page 10 of the pdf at the bottom of the first column and continuing on the top of the second column.

Again, thanks for playing along.

However from http://www.aapg.org/explorer/president/2007/03mar.cfm.

"Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position."

"The current policy statement [i.e. total AGW denial] is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."

And from http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm.

"Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

While I agree that this does not represent the most glowing endorsement of AGW out there remember that these are the American Association of fucking Petroleum Geologists. Up until this point they were the last organization of any national or international significance to hold a dissenting opinion to AGW. Their previous climate statement was full out AGW denial but they were forced by their membership to at least adopt a position that acknowledged the scientific consensus and merely claimed that "These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

Whoops... indeed. OK what's next?

"To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."

Plus I don't recall listing individual state climatologists in my list so the point of this is what?

Whoops again! indeed. Next?

Try reading http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/climate.cfm.

The open letter that you referenced was in fact signed by only 6 members of the American Physical Society although it made (undocumented) claims of representing "more than more than 50 current and former members of APS." Note that the  American Physical Society currently represents over 47,000 members. Even if the undocumented claim of 50 current and former members is accurate this hardly represents a groundswell of support.

Also while this open letter obviously will be addressed (good luck with that, 50 out of 47,000) the current APS statement on climate change stands.

From http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

And again... indeed. I'm sensing a trend here.

"THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions."

Give me a fucking break. THREE fucking senior Japanese scientists "strongly questioned." You can't fucking be serious. THREE. So what organization on my list do these THREE fucking senior Japanese scientists actually represent?

Again... indeed. I think you're getting a bad case of cabin fever.

No official results from a non official organization. How compelling.

Blah blah blah... indeed. Because that's all this is.

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained ... "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

OK that's enough for me. I agree, this really is getting boring. You're wasting my time, you're wasting your own time and you're wasting the time of anyone reading this thread although anyone still reading this thread is probably already wasting their time.

According to the wiki article "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions."

I repeat for the umpteenth time "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

The IUGS looks to be a political/funding organization whose members are nations.  Not a 'scientific' organization in the sense you are looking for, if I understand correctly.

Willy, Mumble doesn't care.  For him it's not what a scientist says, it's whether the statement has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval - in this case, the 'consensus' of the pseudoscience of climatology, which is all about knowing what you want to find and adjusting data to make a statistical model show what you want to find.  This is just his boredom-reliever.