Yes, this one deserves to be filed under dumbassery. Every media outlet feels it must print skeptics now that Al Gore got his Nobel or something. Gotta have that balance, even if one side is just wrong.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

What I'm surprised is that there isn't much of a "Climate Science Primer" out there.
(i.e. A barebones need-to-know understanding of some of the key aspects of climate science)

For instance,
* For 10,000+ year periods, the primary changes in earth's temperature is caused by changes in the earth's orbit relative to the sun.  But that's far too slow to explain the past few decades, much less the past few centuries.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch

* How the Sun doesn't explain the bulk of what's going on in the past half century because the region above the greenhouse layer is getting colder, while the region with the greenhouse layer is getting warmer. (If it were just the sun increasing it's output, both would be getting warmer.)
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png

* Not to mention, we've had 3 sets of satellites up for the past 40 years, and the solar irradiance has dropped off, but the temperature keeps going way up
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png

* How water vapor, while it is the dominant cause of our greenhouse effect, the amount of water vapor in the troposphere is dependant on the temperature of the troposphere. (Not the other way around)
Which means that Carbon based Tropospheric Warming leads to increasing holding capacity for Tropospheric Water Vapor. (i.e. a Megaphone effect)
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
(Which by the way, is that A. Dessler guy who I think it is?
http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=200 ...)

* And how 1998 and 2008 can't be meaningfully explained without the inclusion of the El Nino Southern Oscillation
(Followed by the stupidity of basing any trendlines primarily on those years.)
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/enso

* 1934 versus 1998 thing was local to the mainland US.  Not global.
http://greyfalcon.net/ustemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png

* the numbers on the carbon cycle
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2

* Aerosols; Cloud Condensation Nuclei, why cosmic ray theory is bunk, and the importance of peer reviewed physical science journals.
(In short, the aersols formed by cosmic rays are way to small, and the rays don't have any meaningful correlation)
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/05/things-heat-up-climate ...
((And any attemps at a correlation focus on timeframes of months, when if there was a real correlation it should come into effect in minutes))
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-int ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/cloudy-day-nexus-6-hav ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/throwing-in-towel-one- ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/02/from-another-life.html ...

* A direct attack on the twin arguments of:
"If ONE variable doesn't explain ALL climate behavior, then it cannot explain ANY climate behavior."
"There are UNLIMITED variables, therefore it's so complex, we can't even begin to understand anything, so we might as well just do nothing."
(i.e. Put Solar+Aerosols+ENSO+GreenHouseGases and even though that doesn't explain things down to the tiniest detail, it does a pretty good job of it)
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png

*And of course, put forward the argument that
"Why the earth is warming" cannot be debunked by
"I don't agree with the Science, because I don't like the Political Implications"
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
Or debunked by "Well you can't tell what will happen when/where exactly as a result of the warming, ie Hurricanes, Sea Level Rise, etc"
Because the core thing (for Now atleast) is "Why the earth is warming".
Not "What will happen as a result of warming".

* The thing that really has scientists hair on fire:
The prospect of non-linear warming caused by Feedback loops (i.e. thawing ice/permafrost/hydrates).

* And of course, lastly I propose labeling ourselves, as:
"Climate Realists"
(Since as mentions, there's a lot of benefit to framing things in the possitive, rather than the negative sence.
Otherwise those ensuring the choice of abortion for women would call themselves the "Anti-Life" movement)
(And sure it's slightly pretencious to say that you're a "Realist". However no more so than to say that "climate skeptics" are the only scientists who are skeptical.  All scientists who trust in empirical evidence are skeptical.)

Roundup:
Milankovitch Cycles
Sun's limited Role: Solar Irradiance versus Temperature doesn't match
Sun's limited Role: Tropospheric Warming, Stratospheric Cooling
Water Vapor MegaPhone effect, and why Water vapor alone can't "cause" warming.
1998 and 2008 are tied to the ENSO effect
1934 wasn't "hottest" globally
Basic Carbon Cycle Numbers
Aerosols, Cosmic Ray Theory, and Why psuedo-science doesn't cut it
Climate isn't determined by 1 variable alone, nor by unlimited primary variables
"Disagreeing with Reality" because you don't like the Political Implications, is delussional
Not knowing exactly the outcomes of this warming as we move forward, doesn't mean we can't know the root causes of the warming we've already experienced
Non-Linear warming can be damned scary : Tipping Points
"Climate Realists"

_

(p.s. Hate to use a hobby as an analogy, but I tend to do this whenever I get into a video gaming community, and want to train up some newbies)
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?topic_id=7 ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ns
http://greyfalcon.net/tf2

-David Ahlport

http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png

-David Ahlport