Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

"Will" be published...as in your source "USA Today" (hardly a scientific juggernaut) can say anything they want without anyone being able to read the supporting data.   Oh, and The Albuquerque Journal is only "peered reviewed journal" if your peers are 60 year old women blonde women with 2 inch thick leather skin.

1965-1979:
7 cooling papers (325 citations through 1983)
19 neutral papers (424 citations through 1983)
44 warming papers (1958 citations through 1983)

"Give 'em hell, Harry!"
"I don't give 'em hell, I just tell them the truth and it feels like hell." (Harry S. Truman, attributed)

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

Seven papers on cooling, forty-four on warming. I recall an article from the Journal of Science (which, I believe IS peer-reviewed) from 1975 (vol 189 pp 460-463): "...the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years."

Why believe highly educated, intelligent scientists whose profession it is to study the climate qualitatively & quantitatively, who then present their findings for public review and challenge?

No ... clearly it is better to guide the fate of the people of the world on those who understand little or nothing about the science or the processes and mechanisms of how science is performed.

Well, if I was going to place a bet, I would bet on the more than 30 years of scientific evidence that has only increased in depth and breadth over time.

Besides, I LIKE solar heating, bioreactors and stuff like that. Very cool stuff.  

"...the lessons taught by a teacher with a positive motivation (kun long) penetrate deepest into their student's minds." -Dalai Lama

The Thin Threads of Denial are becoming more fragile, it would seem. The tedious arguments of adolescent & uninformed reasoners grow more tenuous.

Can't you people ever answer a simple question without sounding like Chairman Mao's Red Guard?

1965-1979:
7 cooling papers (325 citations through 1983)
19 neutral papers (424 citations through 1983)
44 warming papers (1958 citations through 1983)

I'm glad that someone wrote this paper because it's exposing a game that's been played not for a decade, but for half a century.   Apparently, yesterday's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) is today's IPCC (now globalized).   And the scam is the same -- take the scantest evidence and pyramid it into a crisis.   Then blanket the whole thing in a high sounding government acronym.  When one scrapes off the layers of mistruth, one ends up finding science that is either brittle or trivial.   The first paper of this first "committee report" is Pales & Keeling (1965) who assert human caused CO2 caused the temperature rise up until then based on measurements in Mauna Loa.   However, the researcher below ( http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm ) finds that:

The annual mean CO2 level as reported from Mauna Loa for 1959 was 315.83 ppmv (15 ppmv lower than the contemporaneous North-European average level), reportedly rising steadily to 351.45 in January 1989 (Keeling et al., 1989), by averaging large daily and seasonal variations (the significance of all their digits not justified), but still within the range of the North European measurements 30-35 years earlier. Hence a rise in global atmospheric CO2 level has not yet been significantly justified by validated methods and sound statistics.

hehe... Yeah, that title is something you'd see on a reputable scientific paper.

"The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), now defunct, called itself "an independent, non-profit-making alliance of scientists whose aim is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles." Typically this manifested itself in questioning the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based.

The Forum was linked, via shared staff (Julian Morris and Roger Bate) and a shared web server, to the International Policy Network and the Sustainable Development Network. The most prominent academic members were US scientists known for skepticism on global warming and the relationship between CFCs and the ozone depletion."

"The International Policy Network (IPN) is a non-profit organisation based in the United Kingdom that funds groups and workshops to promote market solutions to international policy debates."

So, jabailo... You said this earlier:

"Will" be published...as in your source "USA Today" (hardly a scientific juggernaut) can say anything they want without anyone being able to read the supporting data.   Oh, and The Albuquerque Journal is only "peered reviewed journal" if your peers are 60 year old women blonde women with 2 inch thick leather skin."

Peer reviewed important to you? Scientifric standards important to you? Maybe you should start reviewing all papers and information to the same standard. Including the information you agree with?

And the reason why CO2 is measured in the central pacific and not over a smokestack should be obvious.

1 out of ever 4 CO2 molecules currently in the atmosphere is there because of humans.

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID= ...

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip,

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

...

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip,
"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

The Shwartz study, right?

What you want to bet that specific study has it's calculations wrong?

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensit ...
http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/21/are-scientists-over ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/cli ...

-David Ahlport

The IPCC is not a one-man contrarian operation either.  Its many, many real scientists do not rely on obfuscation or un-understandable statistics to state the obvious -- the icecaps and glaciers are melting around the world releasing water into the atmosphere and eventually into the oceans raising sea-levels; measurable amounts of CO2 are co-related to this melt; the same measurable amounts of CO2 are also co-related to mankind's increase in the use of fossil fuels over the past few centuries.  It should not be difficult, even for a non-scientist, to accept the anthropogenic cause for the result.

As for the limp argument that CO2 is 'the breath of life' and therefore should not be feared, it is wise to remember that it is just as easy to drown in an inch of water in your back-yard as it is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  Too much of a good thing...

Des Emery