always knew global warming was a hoax

Most people who are employed by the "Climate Change" industry are those with positions already. If they weren't researching climate change, they'd be researching something else.

Scientists have an interest in lying in order to secure grant money in order to secure positions for their teaching assistants, etc. Those who do so are immoral and should be fired. But this kind of stuff has being going on for years. I spent a summer on an NSERC grant attempting validating a theory on RR Lyrae variables (they are standard candles used to measure galactic distances). If the theory was true, paper published, my name would be attached to it, and fame for the professor (perhaps a full professorship). The theory was false. No paper was published, but she didn't lose her job. She just published more papers.

I've done the scientific work and taken the required physics and meteorology courses to know more than enough about global warming and climate change. The issue with proving climate change has always been the validity of the climate models and all of the feedbacks which are both known and unknown. What is quite known and completely accepted is that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are two man-made gases that trap solar radiition in the atmosphere, and that their concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the industrial age. A great deal of work has also been undertaken to understand how Gaia (mother nature) deals with the increase of these greenhouse gases.

The ocean and plants are absorbing more carbon dioxide (and killing coral). There is probably more cloud cover. More cloud cover increases reflectivity which reduces the effect of global warming (depending on where the clouds are - if the clouds are over land it has the opposite effect). The sun's radiation is variable and depends on the 11 year sunspot cycle. Large volcanic eruptions eject large amounts of sulfates into the upper atmosphere and cool the planet.

So there are lots of factors at work. However, the basic factor remains: humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which increase the amount fo solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere. How the climate reacts to this forcing is the topic of debate today. I would say that the global warming argument of 10 years ago has morphed into climate change.

This story optimistically states that the results of this new study funded by prominent skeptics will convince the skeptics of climate change because it didn't support their original premises.

That's about as likely as Rush Limbaugh becoming a vegan.

As the Koch brothers invested in it, it might be interesting what they think about the results though.

Skeptics who don't understand science will blame fluctuations in the solar output and other factors besides man for the 1 C change in surface temperature. Others will just state that 1 degree celcius is no big deal.

Physicist Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming who didn’t trust the treehugger wackos and the alarmist “scientists” who pandered to them. So he gathered up a team of 10 real scientists (included 2011 Nobel Prize recipient Saul Perlmutter) and set out to debunk the politically correct nonsense by crunching the temperature data (1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world). And then something surprising happened: Muller and his colleagues realized that global warming is real.

So is Muller just another con artist in on the hoax?

Quote: boymimbo

Skeptics who don't understand science will blame fluctuations in the solar output and other factors besides man for the 1 C change in surface temperature. Others will just state that 1 degree celcius is no big deal.

The best part is both are correct.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ku6F2Ksk

Yep, I always trust tabloids to pick up my news.

The paper released actually concludes this link to abstract here:

Quote: agu.org

During the 20th century solar activity increased in magnitude to a so called `grand maximum'. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multi-decadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher emissions scenarios.

The tabloid then goes on to state that "Cycle 25 -- the 22 year sunspot cycle" will be much weaker and therefore, temperatures might be weaker still. Then they correlate the Met's release that temperatures have not risen in 15 years and that the ocean current are in fact influencing temperatures and that climate scientists have to take these into accounts.

Here is the Met's response to the completely false statement that the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years: Link to met article.

Quote: Met Office

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

Context, folks. A false statement is made (the earth has in fact, warmed greatly in the past 15 years). The change in solar output due to sunspots is a great deal smaller than our human influences. The effect of changes in ocean currents and their changes in wind patterns are still being understood. So you can put your head in the sand and point to crappy journalism like this, state that most climate scientists are rigging the data, and say that your casual local observations overrule everything else, or you can look at the actual science.

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan back in the 80's that said that Trees were the "greatest polluter" (referring to the Tokyo decision to Classify CO2 as a pollutant) on Earth?

Quote: boymimbo

Context, folks. A false statement is made (the earth has in fact, warmed greatly in the past 15 years). The change in solar output due to sunspots is a great deal smaller than our human influences. The effect of changes in ocean currents and their changes in wind patterns are still being understood. So you can put your head in the sand and point to crappy journalism like this, state that most climate scientists are rigging the data, and say that your casual local observations overrule everything else, or you can look at the actual science.

I will look at the actual science and not the junk put out by Gore and the "global warming is my religion" crowd and see that there is no reason for the alarmism. More and more people are questioning the warming nonsense, which is a good thing. If we followed "trendlines" the way the envrionmentalists do we would be seeing news reports today that said at current rates the sun would be out 24/7 in most of the Northern Hemisphere and the South would be in total darkness, then a call for a "sun tax" to distribute to Southern Hemisphere countries........

The Wall Street Journal had a guest editorial on this that was a little more responsible. It doesnt claim there has been no warming, but that alarmism is not called for, nor should scientists march shoulder to shoulder mindlessly in the cause.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?KEYWORDS=warming#articleTabs%3Darticle

btw I am sure this link will work only for a short duration.