Seth, See Woods Hole at http://www.whoi.edu/ and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ and http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp There are reviews of numerous publications from many different journals on the last site. I think these sites present credible information although you may disagree. A review of a paper from the "Journal of Geophysical Research" http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N26/C1.jsp is interesting. Woods Hole points out that we have had abrupt climate changes in the past that clearly were not related to the activities of man although they believe our current activities may contribute to and/or escalate the problem. Can any serious researcher deny that we have had many warming and cooling periods on the earth such as multiple ice ages and subsequent warming. Were these caused by man? The Sargasso Sea data http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 indicates that the earth was warmer during the middle ages contradicting Mann's data. I am extremely skeptical of the hockey stick data since it ignores this and the Little Ice Age. The Maunder solar minimum and the Little Ice Age coincide. Proponents of man-made global warming believe the Medieval Warming Period is a major problem and are doing all in their power to minimize or to deny it happened. After the debates in 2000, Al Gore commented he was glad Bush didn't know enough to bring up the Medieval Warm Period. Anyone who actively opposes man-made global warming would have an extremely difficult time publishing in a journal where all the peer reviews were done by proponents of man-made global warming. The sad example of Halton Arp who presented data opposing cosmological distances for quasars is a great example (whether he was right or wrong). I used Senator Inhofe's site because it readily lists several opponents with good credentials. However, there have been several climatologists from MIT and Harvard that have published opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal that I do not think were listed. I think there is hardly a consensus when proponents shout done the opposition. The director of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics appeared on 20/20 on an hour long special questioning man caused global warming (I have a copy of the program). I don't think proponents of man caused global warming are any more objective when their careers, funding and social status would be jeopardized if they took the contrary position. Read Arp's "Seeing Red" for a classic example of peer review censorship. The strong reaction I have gotten on this website is also a good example. Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:29 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Don, I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?) Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics? If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good? Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon. I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered. Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet? Seth