Did you look at the time scales?

Please get your facts right before trying to argue on their basis. (URLs would suffice.)

Where are the papers that deserved publication that somehow were kept out of every peer reviewed journal on the planet? URLs please? Or did the internet unfairly refuse them publication as well? mt

Everybody has a stake in those questions. What's more, everybody with enough knowledge to answer any of them well has a bigger stake.

It's like you had a medical condition and you asked for a competent diagnosis from somebody with tho stake in health care.

That's, what, a 100 word article? It has to mention everything? "Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." does not contradict the existence of other influences. It simply doesn;t take the space to mention them.

Unlike your 100 words, your link has no obvious errors. Your claim that we are still coming out of the ice age is incorrect insofar as global temperature is concerned. Global mean surface temperature probably peaked 5000 to 8000 years ago and was gradually declining until the abrupt 20th century rise. It is now a close call whether we have caught up to the 5ka peak, but we will likely surpass it soon enough.

Ummm you do realize that if part of the claim of "climate-gate" is that peer reviewed journals, or the reviewers of said journals, were discriminating against contradictory papers then stating that no contradictory papers have been published in those journals isn't exactly proof that there was no conspiracy? This was a stronger argument in pre-internet days. Now you can always self-publish a paper. If they had anything serious they would have come up with something convincing enough, by now, to convince some competent people. The reason they are not in serious journals, and the reason that journals that publish them lose status could be a) a vast conspiracy or b) the stuff they write is worthless crap. The conversation in the stolen emails is consistent with both theories. By the way, you can always read some of the naysayer sciencey stuff in their captive journal Energy and Environment. Decide for yourself.

The "leaked source code" was a one-off diagnostic hack. Try not to make a federal case out of that, OK? How would you feel if a quick diagnostic hack of yours was posted on the internet as evidence of the criminal intentions of your organization?

(Of course, I am assuming that you DO write code and that your organization ISN'T criminal. Otherwise disregard this.)

"I can't imagine the harm of the oil in the ocean being less than it would cause being burned for fuel."

Of course you are right about that. Oil refined and used is far less damaging than oil spilled. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I mean is that slow gradual problems can be bigger than huge obvious ones.

Anyway there was a similar event in 1979 and the world didn't end. Tens of thousands of barrels a day spilled for months into the Gulf.

Also, I've lived most of my adult life in Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I love Chicago, but one of its drawbacks is that it *always* smells like oil fumes. I don't believe you are smelling the Gulf.

Geez, calm down. I'm just trying to get some perspective.

Yes, that much oil is enough to cause the extinction of humanity, if it finds its way into our bloodstreams.

Ocean currents are, fortunately, not that selective.

This botched well is shaping up to be a terrible mess but it will, if anything, destroy America's best beaches, and its most valuable wetlands. It won't destroy the ocean. I am just advocating for directing your concerns in the right direction, not for shrugging them off.

The Gulf of Mexico is huge compared to a sailboat, but tiny compared to the whole ocean. The volume of the ocean is 1.5 x 10^18 tons. Even if a ton of oil contaminates a million tons of water, 50,000 barrels a day would take over half a million years to do the job by my calculations.

It may be a decent sized oil reservoir (it is far from "one of the largest ever" per the article) but it isn't THAT big. Sometime in the next half million years it will stop gushing on its own. Probably before that.

This is a very serious event on the scale of the Gulf, but it is nowhere near as serious as ocean acidification from atmospheric CO2, which affects the entire ocean.

Those aren't forcings; they are components of the system being forced.

Relevant quote:

My own interference with this great question, while sanctioned by many eminent names, has been also an object of varied and ingenious attack. On this point I will only say that when angry feeling escapes from behind the intellect, where it may be useful as an urging force, and places itself athwart the intellect, it is liable to produce all manner of delusions. Thus my censors, for the most part, have levelled their remarks against positions which were never assumed, and against claims which were never made.

- John Tyndall, 1881

http://transcribingtyndall.wordpress.com/2008/08/

Phil is talking like climate scientists talk. There is nothing remotely unusual in any of it. Your problem is you don't know how to spin it when you have actual scientist talk in front of you. Sorry to confuse you so badly.

Well, there haven't been any major asteroid strikes either. Got any other candidates?

Bus? He isn't saying anything substantially different from what the climate science community says.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html from 1979 seems pretty close to what is being said now.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?