Let's just fight over the science until the evidence is irrefutable one way or the other.

To get the ball rolling I invite you to my posting:

You've Got to Have Heartland

what do you wear to a fake climate funeral? is there food afterwords?

caterpillarGirl, I think true believers show up only wearing sun tan lotion

Why do I feel like I'm the one who's been buried looking at this picture?

How about we make sure our conlcusions are correct before we make costly alterations to our lifestyle.

Like I said, let's wait until the evidence is irrefutable - because we wouldn't want to spend any money making any changes until we are absolutely, positively, 100% certain and all in agreement.
Because really, unless the globe is going to overheat or melt, why stop polluting just because people die from drinking dirty water and breathing filthy air, or because babies are born with defects caused by unsafe chemicals. Unless and until we are absolutely positive we're going to drown or burn, let's not do anything that might cost money.

Steph - Why should we waste money on something that is unnecessary? Instead of working on green air technology, why not put those funds into water desalination systems? And since when did CO2 become an unsafe chemical?

I think what she's trying to say Lord Vader is that regardless if Global Warming is a fantasy or fact the things we do to combat that effect will benefit us regardless of global warming or not.

Thanks Hypno.

Yeah, because an extra tax on my heating fuel is exactely the thing I need. When did CO2 become a toxic gas? Don't humans exhale CO2, and plants take in CO2 to use for growth?

Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.
Water is key to life too, and yet you can drown in it.

I posted this as a separate blog the other day. Since i doubt many here will go look at it there here it is:
You've Got to Have Heartland
By Peter Ferrara
The chief source of hysteria over possible man-made global warming has been the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel's own climate models project that if man's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call "the fingerprint." Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude, producing a "hotspot" near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth's surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling.
All scientists, both the alarmist warm-mongers and the pacifist cooler heads, agree that this temperature pattern would result if man were causing global warming, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would prevail in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now enable us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively.
The observed result is just the opposite of the modeled global warming fingerprint pattern. The data from weather balloons shows no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data confirms this result, no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint.
Top Scientists
This was the most important point made by the brilliant scientists from around the world who attended the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York City last week. Those scientists included, among many others who deserve to be household names: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first director of the National Weather Satellite Service: Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly a professor of dynamic meteorology and director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Physics at Harvard; Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Aqua satellite; Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and winner of numerous prestigious Science awards, and Syun-ichi Akasofu, professor of physics and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, winner of awards from the Royal Astronomy Society of London, Japan Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
There is no collection of scientists in the world smarter and better than these and the others who spoke at and attended the conference. Several argued further that the entire temperature pattern of the 20th century follows normal climate variations, rather than CO2 emissions. Temperatures in the U.S., which has the most thorough and consistent temperature record and historically the most CO2 emissions, were stable until 1920, increased some in the 1920s, and then soared to produce the hottest decade of the century during the 1930s. The climate then cooled during most of the period from 1940 until about 1977, except for a brief spike from about 1949 to 1953. Temperatures climbed upward from 1977 until 1998, except for a sharp downturn from about 1988 until about 1995. Temperatures are down over the past decade.
Yet CO2 increased continuously throughout the century, which should have produced a trend of consistent temperature increases if it were causing global warming. Several presenters at the conference argued that the more complex actual temperature variations were fully explained by natural, long-term temperature patterns. The temperature increases until 1940 reflected mostly the continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ran roughly from the early 1400s to the late 1800s. The pattern since then is consistent with the variations of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a 20 to 30 year up and down variation in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean produced by deep sea ocean currents.
Global Cooling
Moreover, several presenters argued that due to these natural variations we have already entered a period of long-term cooling that will last at least another 20 years, and maybe more. Indeed, satellite measured temperatures show that the global atmosphere has cooled over the last 10 years, with the decline in temperatures accelerating over the last two years. As Lord Christopher Monckton, who also spoke at the conference, has said, "Global warming stopped 10 years ago. It hasn't gotten warmer since 1998….In fact in the last 7 years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about…one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We're actually in a period…of global cooling."
What portends longer-term cooling is that Pacific temperatures have now turned cold, which is likely to continue for another 15-20 years given past trends. Moreover, we have now experienced an extended period of minimal sun spot activity. If that continues, we may suffer an even longer cooling period, perhaps even a return to the Little Ice Age, as has happened in the past when sunspots declined for an extended period.
Just a couple of days ago, a separate, independent, peer reviewed study appeared in Geophysical Research Letters from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. It concluded as well that the temperature variations of the 20th century were all explained by natural causes rather than human CO2 emissions. The study also concluded that the warming period of the late 20th century is over and an extended cooling period lasting another 20 years or so has begun.

Climate Science
Several other presenters at the Heartland conference went on to explain in detail why the models used by the UN to predict global warming and associated catastrophes are so wrong. As one explained, slight exaggerations in each of several variables when multiplied together add up to huge final errors. Another explained that the models assume that heat resulting from increased CO2 reduces clouds, further increasing temperatures, but satellite data now show that the clouds sharply reduce heat produced by CO2, resulting in a strong negative feedback, which leaves increased CO2 too weak to produce significant global warming. Other variables expected to produce strong positive feedback effects increasing global warming resulting from CO2 were shown to have little or no effect, or even a negative effect.
Other well-known facts further support the careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists at the Heartland conference, whose presentations should soon be available on video at www.heartland.org. Global temperatures were warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a span of several hundred years around 1000 A.D. Even higher temperatures prevailed during a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ran roughly from 8,000 years ago (6000 B.C.) to 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.). In fact, temperatures were higher than today during most of the period from 9000 B.C. to the birth of Christ.
Yet, there was no significant human burning of fossil fuels during these periods to cause these higher temperatures, and none of the catastrophes ascribed to global warming occurred during these periods.
Moreover, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were much higher in the past than today. For hundreds of millions of years prior to 400 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were well over 30 times greater than today. But CO2 concentrations have actually been in sharp decline since then. From roughly 50 million to 350 million years ago, fluctuating CO2 concentrations were generally 3 to 15 times current levels. These much higher CO2 concentrations did not cause any catastrophic effects. Quite to the contrary, more atmospheric CO2 causes plants to grow far more rapidly, as plants need to take in CO2 to live. Indeed, a recent report raises a concern that we are in a period of "CO2 famine," involving the lowest CO2 concentrations in history, and mankind and plant and animal life would all be greatly benefited by increased CO2.
These and other basic scientific facts relating to global warming are discussed in detail in my article in the March issue of The American Spectator ("Why the World is Getting Warmer, Even Though It Is Getting Colder").
Brown Shirt Tactics
Environmentalists just respond to the arguments of these careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists with ridicule and derision, claiming quite wrongly that the scientific debate is over, and these "deniers" should just shut up, or be shut out. Quite to the contrary, what the scientists at the Heartland conference have demonstrated beyond dispute is that at a minimum the scientific debate is just warming up, so to speak. I think they have demonstrated quite clearly already that the alarmist warm-mongers are just wrong. No wonder the environmentalists don't want to debate.
These are brown shirt tactics effectively just shouting down any opponents and preempting debate. What our congressional representatives of both parties and all ideologies owe the American people is a thorough demonstration in public hearings and floor debates as to why a trillion dollars or more in additional costs on our economy to fight global warming, as well as a sharp decline in the American standard of living, and losses of several million jobs and trillions in lost economic growth, are justified. If they can't do that, and they vote for such global warming regulation anyway, then they are betraying the American people.
Al Gore himself recently provided another example of these brown shirt tactics. When Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, at the World Economics Forum in Davos, Switzerland, publicly challenged Gore to a debate on global warming a few days ago, Gore said,
"I want to be polite to you. But, no….[T]he scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we as a civilization…should pretend that this is an on-the-one hand/on-the-other hand situation. It is not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."
To think after inventing the Internet, all these years later, Gore would show up in a completely different profession, as a Drama Queen in his own performance of George Orwell's classic, 1984. I say Drama Queen because even this self-deluded fool knows that his answer is just an act, he is just pretending that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, to preempt any debate, so he can go straight to GO and collect his $200. His response to the scientists at the Heartland Institute conference is effectively, you don't exist, and nothing was said here over the last 3 days. It is all down the memory hole. He effectively provides the same response to the over 31,000 American scientists who signed a petition opposing the Kyoto accords because "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will…cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere…."
The same is true of everyone else who claims that the debate over global warming is over because of an overwhelming scientific consensus in its favor. They are all dishonorably engaged in an act, a game of pretend, effectively to shout down opponents and preempt any debate.
Even some of those associated with the UN global warming panel who purport to be real climate scientists, such as Michael Mann, just respond with ridicule and derision to those scientists who disagree with their fevered global warming fantasies. Mann himself produced a paper arguing that the historic temperature record follows the pattern of a hockey stick, with no significant change for centuries, and then a sudden upward spurt in the 20th century. That paper has been discredited by many because it denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which are as firmly supported in the historical record as dinosaurs, maybe even more so.
The UN can't be trusted on global warming any more than the oil companies, because it has an enormous institutional interest in showing the theory to be true, thereby justifying enormous increases in its institutional powers. The same is true for environmental extremists, who are trying to take over the world based on this theory, with huge reserves of funds stored up to do it. Now several business groups believe they can use global warming to make fortunes as well, including some associated with Al Gore.
So global warming is not really a debate about science. It is a battle over money and power, as several at the Heartland Conference explicitly recognized. That is why the argument has been so dishonest until now. If you want to keep up with the true story, sign up at www.sepp.org for regular weekly reports from Fred Singer updating the battle.

"So global warming is not really a debate about science. It is a battle over money and power, as several at the Heartland Conference explicitly recognized."

:truestory:

"If you want to keep up with the true story, sign up at www.sepp.org for regular weekly reports from Fred Singer updating the battle."

Whenever an article says 'if you want the truth, stick with us' there's an agenda. And as long as Singer can keep enough people confused, the side he serves can continue doing what it wants unimpeded.

Steph m,ake an intlligent rsonse to the facts presented in the article, where are they wrong?

Yes they have an agenda, it is called truth
Are these guy crackpots: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first director of the National Weather Satellite Service: Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly a professor of dynamic meteorology and director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Physics at Harvard; Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Aqua satellite; Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and winner of numerous prestigious Science awards, and Syun-ichi Akasofu, professor of physics and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, winner of awards from the Royal Astronomy Society of London, Japan Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Lets see the ciriculum Vita of your sources. Oh yeah, the guy who invented the Internet, how silly of me.

Whoa Grandpa - you're just ad homineming all over the place!
Are you actually trying to claim that none of the scientists who believe that global warming is an issue have valid credentials? Are you trying to claim that without Al Gore there is no global warming? Which corporations have paid Fred Singer as a consultant? Does it make you wonder at all that Singer also questions experts who claim a link between smoking and cancer?

How is this not fearmongering? Has any of the predictions happened yet? Are the seas 21' above where they should be? Is Miami and New York under water?

I am asking for someone to list the scientists who support man made global warming with their curriculum Vita. Where exactly are my ad hominem attacks? Your not claiming that Al Gore has the scientific credentials to back up his bloviating?

I'm not getting into a my list of scientists versus yours pissing match. You know full well there are thousands of scientists who believe that global warming is real and that it is caused by human beings. Get off the Al Gore kick - if you don't like him, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM - I don't and no one I know with the Union of Concerned Scientists saw his movie.
But common sense (and/or mothers) tells us that if we make a mess, we should clean it up.

I don’t believe global warming is man made. I believe as our dear friend UnDave likes to remind us (especially those who say it’s man made) that global warming is a natural process that’s been around since our current atmospheric condition has existed.

However we’re not off the hook the problem is human industrial activity and general pollution has amplified that process and it is this amplification that is the problem. Everything has limits that’s common sense so why should biogeochemical cycles be any different?

We can continue to deny that humans have any blame in this in the face of scientific data that suggests strongly otherwise coupled with accelerated arctic melt; dramatically reducing hunting range for Polar Bears and Indigenous people; unexplained amphibian, insect, fish and coral reef die offs; unusual migratory pattern changes; increasing hurricane activity; the migration of disease carrying insects to Northern territories due to warmer climates. It is not an absurdity to suggest that our activity is over loading a natural process given our history of cause and effect upon the earth already. Everything has a limit it’s common sense so why should biogeochemical cycles be any different? The earth is speaking to us and I strongly suggest that we listen.

"a New Orleans-style funeral march was staged to mourn lost generations of the future."

They should have one of these funerals for the future generations that will be paying for the "bailouts" and "stimulus packages". Unlike the debated uncertainty of the affects of global warming, the poor kids who are going to be stuck paying for this generation's mess are screwed. And that's a fact.

Don't we have enough funerals in this world without making up excuses to have more?

Good point, Piper.

I don't understand why people weren't concerned about future generations paying back the nearly two trillion dollar bill run up by the Bush administration. Or why they thought wars were better investments than education, health care or infrastructure.

I don't know, Steph. Maybe its because we started giving private companies blank checks thinking that it would turn the economy around and it hasn't. And then we find out that there is almost zero accountablilty from the companies who received the blank checks. Maybe its because I want a blank check too and so far it hasn't come in the mail, you know, since its the age of government giving and all. I guess some people like me, are pissed off with all of the giving. Bush is not running the show anymore. If things don't turn around soon, its going to be put on Obama. That' just the nature of the beast.

2 Trillion over 8 years on protecting our way of life, or 3 trillion in LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF ONE YEAR! At this pace, Obama will put us:

3 trillion X 4 quarters = 12 trillion/year X 4years = 48 trillion dollars.

"3 trillion X 4 quarters = 12 trillion/year X 4years = 48 trillion dollars"

...and our economy will be no better off.

The fact is Steph, that there is a dearth of credible scientists with the requisite background supporting Global warming, and you can't produce a credible list with requisite background. You love "I am not playing your game" when you have lost an argument. It is a pattern you repeat over and over.

Grandpa and Stephly I just feel that if we argue one extreme vs. the other we're missing the forest for the trees.

G'pa when you make comments like "that there is a dearth of credible scientists with the requisite background supporting Global warming" I just give up.

According to that claim, everyone who believes there is evidence that there is a global warming threat lacks credibility and ONLY the people with whom you happen to agree are credible. Why would anyone want to play your game?

I could produce a list of credible scientists who work with the U.N., the U.S. and other governments, government agencies worldwide, major environmental groups worldwide to match your guy who works for major corporations and has a website, and you'd say 'no they're not credible' and we would argue over what determines a scientist's credibility; then we would argue over which scientific areas should be considered credible when it comes to global warming; then we could break down each detail used to support global warming claims and argue over whether it's simply cyclical, caused by humans or exacerbated by humans - we would, of course, disagree on everything.

Like several others here of your ideological bent, you declare winners and losers as you please. Since only time will tell who's right I'm not interested or impressed by those declarations, but if it makes you feel superior, be my guest and crown yourself king.

Well, let's see some cogent posts, addressing the points brought up in my posting #13. I notice how you refuse to address the actual points raise,

Hypno, I presented fully annotated refutation of man made global warming alarmists. All I ask is for a credible response as to why those conclusions are wrong, and with citations from Scientists in the field of science that can address climate change in a scholar manner.

Sorry, I'm not responding to a screed from a seriously partisan publication.

How can you claim you want a scholarly discussion when you post an article that includes lines like these?

"This was the most important point made by the brilliant scientists from around the world who attended the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York City last week. Those scientists included, among many others who deserve to be household names: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first director of the National Weather Satellite Service..."

"Environmentalists just respond to the arguments of these careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists with ridicule and derision, claiming quite wrongly that the scientific debate is over, and these "deniers" should just shut up, or be shut out."

"To think after inventing the Internet, all these years later, Gore would show up in a completely different profession, as a Drama Queen in his own performance of George Orwell's classic, 1984. I say Drama Queen because even this self-deluded fool knows that his answer is just an act, he is just pretending that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, to preempt any debate, so he can go straight to GO and collect his $200."

So, you can't give me a credible list of scientists, and you have no cogent response, Steph. If you had any you would have posted your list, and answer the points made in the article. I repeat what i have said before "Perhaps calling views you disagree with “extreme” and/or accusing those who hold them of having dishonorable motives is just a clever way of saying that you don’t want an “honest conversation” at all." If you have answers, then answer. STOP FINDING EXCUSES for not responding. I notice that is your pattern on too many posts. I am sorry for getting personal, but it just has to be said, after reading a year of your comments.

Nice tryy, Hypno, but I don't think they're listening. What's more, I don't think they're even reading each other's posts!

This is funny!

"All I ask is for a credible response as to why those conclusions are wrong, and with citations from Scientists in the field of science that can address climate change in a scholar manner. "

... considering... well, nevermind.

I'M NOT LISTING A BUNCH OF NAMES WITH TITLES. THAT WOULD BE STUPID AND USELESS AND SIMPLY OPEN A NEW ARGUMENT OVER EACH INDIVIDUAL!!

If that makes you the winner then yes, you are King Reasonable Science

Actually Carrie, I agree with Hypno - I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE the extremes, I said that way back at #20. I just think people should clean up after themselves.

But, let's make the fallacy of the "dearth" issue clear:

"Scientists say global warming real
Published: Jan. 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM

CHICAGO, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A wide range of Earth scientists say humans contribute significantly to global warming, suggests a poll conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The poll should dispel doubts by some that a consensus about global warming exists among scientists, said Peter Doran, a University of Illinois professor who conducted the poll with students last year.

The 3,146 Earth scientists interviewed around the world overwhelmingly agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200-plus years and human activity is a significant factor, Doran said in a statement released Monday.

The scientists, chosen from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, were asked two questions via e-mail: if mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and if human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of those polled agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second question, Doran said. "

----
Sunday Times of London 3/15/09:

"It follows last week’s climate science summit in Copenhagen where 2,500 leading climate scientists issued a stark warning to politicians that unless they took drastic action to cut carbon emissions, the world would face “irreversible shifts in climate”.

They warned that global temperature increases averaging more than 4C were now possible and that HUMAN-GENERATED CO2 could also acidify the world’s oceans, wiping out life-forms ranging from tiny plankton to coral reefs."

I keep seeing the number of scientists listed, but never their names education, background or accomplishments. I want the names of the scientists and the studies done that reached the global warming conclusion. The UN study was couched in terms that were meaningless, and in no way supported the published conclusions.

I posted an article with names, and evidence that showed flaws in global warming hysteria. Please find me the study, that takes into account those Global temperature changes, and how man made global warming is different.

If you want the names, google the articles and read them. It's silly for anyone to cut and paste the names and credentials of people neither of us knows so you can argue about them.

Your claim that the UN study was 'couched in terms that were meaningless and in no way supported the published conclusions' is another 'why bother' statement - you're clearly intent on simply negating anything that doesn't fit your view. You just want to throw rocks.

Steph, I have tried google that was how i found and read the UN report, not just the MSM Summary. The actual report, did not support the summary at all.

I want a report with someone actually putting his/her name on it.

Well google some more. Go to Greenpeace, go to Union of Concerned Scientists, go the the Sierra Club... think of a group that you oppose and go to their sites and see what reports they link to. You're the one intent on proving a point. Since I believe that people should clean up after themselves whether the world is about to melt or not I don't need to read and analyse every report until I'm convinced.

Steph, stop making excuses for the fact you believe in man made global warming without a shred of credible scientific documentation you can point to. You should no that you can never prove a negative. It is not incumbent on a non believer to prove anything. It is the responsibility of the believer to provide irrefutable evidence. That is what the article i referenced did , it is asking GW hysterics, to show a model that explains past climate fluctuations that shows the man made effect. You should do that before you ruin an already troubled economy with additional burdens to profitability, and without saddling consumers with the resultant price increases to offset increased cost.

know = no

This is your pattern: you decide you know what I think and then tell me to defend a position that I've NEVER taken.

It's not incumbent on me to do anything and the article you copied here is a biased screed, not science.
The author, Peter Ferrara, is not a scientist.

According to the American Spectator's website - where your article appears - Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation - a "think tank" that emphasizes free markets and limited governments. That means Peter Ferrara sees global warming in terms of cost and regulation. And at least one of his "brilliant" scientists consults for major polluters like EXXON, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO, Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, McDonnell-Douglas and tobacco companies.

Peter Ferrara wrote that article, wow.. Peter Ferrara is not a scientist double wow. Did you figure that out from reading the name of the guy off of the article , and the fact there was no letters after his name? The article quotes actual scientists,with their Curricular Vita. Since you went this far in your googling the author, it is safe to assume you could find no credible authority to support man made global warming, nor anything to impinge the authority of the scientists quoted. Nice try at obfuscation,but it does not sell here.

"Nice try at obfuscation, but it does not sell here."

I'm-not-researching-manmade-global-warming-because-I've-repeatedly-said-I-have-no-interest-in-arguing-a-position-I've-never-taken.

"The article quotes actual scientists,with their Curricular Vita."
Dude, just about any article you google on global warming names at least one scientist and where they're from. One guy in Ferrara's article is said to be the 'winner of numerous prestigious Science awards" which is nice and vague isn't it? At least Al Gore can be clear on his CV that his big award is a share of a Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee probably doesn't understand science as well as Ferrara though and that's why they didn't notice that the UN study was "couched in terms that were meaningless, and in no way supported the published conclusions." The science prize winners that year probably were afraid if they said anything their prizes would be taken back.

You said "Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can absorb it."
.
That case is being refuted in the above article.