Another climate change denier myth - this one a favorite of Anthony Watts and his "Watts Up With That" blog - has just bit the dust.

Many skeptics for years have sought to explain away decades of climate research by showing slides of weather station thermometers sited next to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.

This much-touted “urban heat island effect” was supposed to trump all those fancy graphs and equations that egghead scientists were fixated on. Except it’s not true.

A recent peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research looked at data from 114 weather stations from across the US over the last twenty years and compared measurements from locations that were well sited and those that weren’t.

They did find an overall bias, but it was towards cooling rather warming.

According to the authors,

“the bias is counter intuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.”

Oops.

Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

I'd rather appeal to authority than spend hours digging up proofs to hash over this issue, I have better things to do. What the AGW side really needs to work on is PR, since this is a political issue foremost at this stage. I have little faith in their accomplishing much, most people take their cue on global warming from what's coming out of talk radio or whether it's snowing/boiling hot out.

Peak oil is much more grey an issue, imho, hence worth delving into. Even the AGW proponents who bring it up consider it a transient issue of little importance; Hansen's paper referenced the Hirsch report, for example, which was little more than a cursory examination of a supply side buildup. The really rigorous work on it apart from Laherrère and Campbell is coming from bloggers like Stuart Staniford.

Doubt that will sway you, rock, others may take interest. I see that Callendar took this into account way back in 1938, as have all who followed in his wake.

I'd rather appeal to authority than spend hours digging up proofs to hash over this issue, I have better things to do. What the AGW side really needs to work on is PR, since this is a political issue foremost at this stage. I have little faith in their accomplishing much, most people take their cue on global warming from what's coming out of talk radio or whether it's snowing/boiling hot out.

Not sure if you’re living in a vacuum or not but the “authority” you reference is up to their necks in controversy as it is being shown that more and more of their claims were not based on peer reviewed literature, something they claimed they did not do.

Believe what you want…..that’s why there are religions and zeolots.
Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

MEMO TO MEDIA: Please start doing some damn journalism — like placing a simple phone call to a primary source. A great many “newspapers” like the Daily Mail are no more reliable than the websites of the anti-science disinformers, like the thoroughly discredited ClimateDepot of Marc Morano.

In an exclusive interview — “exclusive” in the sense that many of the people smearing Dr. Murari Lal haven’t bothered to ask him whether the original story was accurate — Dr. Lal asserts that the “most vilest allegations” in the Daily Mail story are utterly false.

Even though the U.S. financial system nearly experienced a total meltdown in late 2008, the truth is that most Americans simply have no idea what is happening to the U.S. economy. Most people seem to think that the nasty little recession that we have just been through is almost over and that we will be experiencing another time of economic growth and prosperity very shortly. But this time around that is not the case. The reality is that we are being sucked into an economic black hole from which the U.S. economy will never fully recover.

You're confusing media with science:

Why should I listen to a geologist, however informed? That goes exponential for many posters on this site. If anybody cares: Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change.

It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money).

Mead began organizing for her conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering,” shortly after she had attended the United Nations Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, in August 1974...

...What Scientists Need To ‘Invent’
Here’s what Mead wanted the atmospheric scientists to do:

What we need to invent—as responsible scientists—are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This, of course, poses a set of technical problems for social scientists, but they are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry...

...Mead’s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of “conservation” and “environmentalism” in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain’s Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)...

...The rock-sex-drugs counterculture of the ‘68ers lapped it up. Man was seen as just another animal, but an exceedingly greedy one, using up Mother Nature’s resources and making a mess in the process. The unique cognitive ability of the human being, with its power to create new resources, to develop more advanced science and technology, and thus to provide better living standards was trashed.[3] Scientific pessimism invaded the scientific organizations.

Mead played a central role in this degeneration, from her obsession with spreading the “free love” message, to her participation in mind-control projects (the Cybernetics group at MIT) with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, intellectual author of the infamous MK-Ultra drug-brainwashing program...

Man was seen as just another animal, but an exceedingly greedy one,

using up Mother Nature’s resources and making a mess in the process.

The unique cognitive ability of the human being, with its power to create new resources,

to develop more advanced science and technology, and thus to provide better living standards was trashed.

Scientific pessimism invaded the scientific organizations

actually no....in pretty much every aspect of geology we look at "hard physical proofs" to test theories. As an example time and again in the Abiotic Oil thread i"ve pointed to the physical proof for organic origins of oil and the lack of physical proof for abiotic oil natually occuring. Plate tectonics is a theory for which there is lots of physical proof....magnetic banding in the seafloor, fit of the continents, seismic benioff zones associated with subduction zones, acidic volcanoes associated with backarc areas etc.
In biological sciences the same I think is true as it is in chemical engineering and a host of other sciences. You have a theory and then look to the direct proofs for that theory. Astrophysics is probably one of the areas where it is extremely difficult to find direct proofs.
Without proof all you have is a theory and no way to test it against the physical world.

Not sure if you’re living in a vacuum or not but the “authority” you reference is up to their necks in controversy as it is being shown that more and more of their claims were not based on peer reviewed literature, something they claimed they did not do.

Believe what you want…..that’s why there are religions and zeolots.
Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

Bureaucratic Structure

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.

Early stories from the leaked emails identified the obvious illegal and unacceptable activities that do not require understanding of climate science. These related to the work of the CRU members who effectively controlled the chapters on atmospheric chemistry, paleoclimatic reconstruction of past climate conditions, the computer models, and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Strange because in the grand scheme of things when the guy on the left tells the guy on the right to jump...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/ looks like the IPCC is losing creditability daily.

They lost credibility a long time ago when they caved in to political forces, understating the implications of climate change.

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations moved today to implement a key component of the Copenhagen Accord, announcing the launch of a high-level panel to design and oversee a $100 billion annual fund for climate mitigation and adaptation financing in poor countries.

The Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing must design a mechanism to channel cash from developed nations to projects aimed at protecting agriculture and infrastructure from rising seas and weather extremes...

...The group will also propose strategies for boosting renewable energy and clean technology investments in poor nations in an effort to move stalled international negotiations forward.

"Funding would include both public and private sources," Ban said.

There was no mention made at today's briefing of an additional $30 billion for an annual financing facility that wealthy nations agreed to set up at last December's climate talks in Copenhagen. Though the Copenhagen Accord that was agreed to at the eleventh hour of international negotiations last year lacks details, it does commit developed-nation parties to achieving $30 billion a year in mitigation and adaptation financing over the next three years, growing to $100 billion per year by 2020.

"I will ensure that the results of the group's work are communicated to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties, with the full expectation that the advisory group's work will help build momentum toward the successful negotiation of a comprehensive climate change agreement," Ban said.

...Though officials and top negotiators say they are still aiming to craft a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol by the end of the year, most traders in carbon emissions allowances and offsets do not expect that to occur.

Prospects hinge on whether U.S. EPA imposes greenhouse gas emissions regulations or Congress approves a climate bill. Carbon market lobbyists in Washington say privately that they do not expect a bill to pass until 2011 at the earliest.

Carbon market analysts also report that offset project investors active in the United Nations' Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) -- the main vehicle for mitigation financing and technology transfers in the developing world -- are now pulling back or refraining from launching new initiatives.

Though governments and companies in Europe are still purchasing the CDM offset credits, investors fear the entire scheme will cease to exist once the Kyoto Protocol treaty expires at the end of 2012, rendering the credits worthless....

Correction: The Global Environment Facility is not a part of the World Bank, as stated in previous versions. Its four-year fund is estimated to be worth $3.13 billion.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 180 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues. An independent financial organization, the GEF provides grants to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. These projects benefit the global environment, linking local, national, and global environmental challenges and promoting sustainable livelihoods.

Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment. The GEF has allocated $8.8 billion, supplemented by more than $38.7 billion in cofinancing, for more than 2,400 projects in more than 165 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 10,000 small grants directly to nongovernmental and community organizations.

The GEF partnership includes 10 agencies: the UN Development Programme; the UN Environment Programme; the World Bank; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; the UN Industrial Development Organization; the African Development Bank; the Asian Development Bank; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; the Inter-American Development Bank; and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel provides technical and scientific advice on the GEF’s policies and projects.

A review from the UK Met Office says it is becoming clearer that human activities are causing climate change.
It says the evidence is stronger now than when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out its last assessment in 2007.
The analysis, published in the Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Journal, has assessed 110 research papers on the subject.
It says the earth is changing rapidly, probably because of greenhouse gases.
In 2007 the IPCC's report concluded that there was "unequivocal" evidence that the Earth was warming and it was likely that it was due to burning of fossil fuels.
Since then the evidence that human activities are responsible for a rise in temperatures has increased, according to this new assessment by Dr Peter Stott and colleagues at the UK Met Office.
The study, which looks at research published since the IPCC's report, has found that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate.
"What this study shows is that the evidence has strengthened for human influence on climate and we know that because we've looked at evidence across the climate system and what this shows very clearly is a consistent picture of a warming world," said Dr Stott.
The study brings together other research from a range of disciplines