If you follow the links I provided, you can learn a thing or two on your own.

Apparently, you need an authority to tell you what is right or wrong, which is why you keep asking for credentials. Well, life ain’t that easy.

And you obviously do watch too much TV if you think scientists get their information from the TV. (I don’t even get a third of the stations you listed in that other thread on my TV.)

I was asked for a paper for the pee’ers to review, I used information gleaned from the holiest of all globule werming sources (The Discovery Channel), and it gets written off as “watching to much TV”, which is the same place the pee’ers get their information.

Interesting.

Where do you get your “information?” Would you mind listing those 11 discrepancies and explaining how they are serious?

And while you are at this little task, please comment on these quotes by the British judge (Justice Burton) about the film “An Inconvenient Truth” in his ruling:

- “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”

- “I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.’”

Did the judge in Great Britain consult that source when he found 11 serious discrepancies and disallowed them in The English School system?

Who set up that site anyway? algore hissownself for you to use as a “reference” site?
I see you didn’t mention the styrofoam icefloes algore used in the film as pretend real ice, why is that?

Or how about the 10 year old Polar Bear on the icefloe pictures that were used out of context to present a false image?

So much for scientific honesty.

Here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

Here are a few highlights from this peer-review:
“It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook …”

“… it is a very good slide show …”

“How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.”

“There are a few scientific errors …”

“For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.”

“In short: this film is worth seeing.”

Have you seen the film yet, WLJ? Or are you just repeating the gibberish of the KnowNothing crowd?

Why is it that algores folly, “An inconvenient fable” gets no “peer review”, even though it has been proven to be nothing more than a made in hollywood fairytale?

Can it possibly be that the most mighty minds on this site have tunnel vision?

Or possibly their own ‘less than honest’ agenda?

As you have pointed out, Singer is well supported by the oil industry (and he has found many ways to launder the money so that it seldom can be directly linked to him).

Mother Jones put together a table three years ago to show many of the “think” tanks that Exxon has supported to the tune of $8million. Singer’s name shows up repeatedly. So you are right, Singer has been, and likely still is, supported by oil companies. It can be found here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

(The CFACT is in the table too! One thing these industry apologists do well is cover each others’ backs!)

You’ll note in the Singer paper from December that the radiosonde data they used was old. They had been provided with more up to date data, but this newer set did not support their conclusions, so they presented only the old. How much has Exxon paid Singer for his soul?

The “Singer” paper (he is the fourth author) appears to have been published in the online edition in December. Here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract

As far as I can tell it has never been published in the print form of the journal. If you don’t have a subscription to the journal, you can do a ‘Google Scholar’ search on the paper title. Or you can find it here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

It appears this is too new for anyone in the scientific community to have critiqued it in the published print literature. However, if this is your cup of tea, the climate scientists over at Real Climate have dissected this paper and point out some of the usual inconsistencies in these Douglas, Chrisy & Singer papers (i.e., using arbitrarily truncated data sets, selective discussions of uncertainty, unusually calculated means, misleading graphics, etc). This discussion can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/langswitch_lang/in#more-509

So, the publication is real. Whether or not the conclusions are supported by the evidence may take a few years of testing within the scientific community. This could be good work. Some scientists have found it lacking, but we probably won’t know for sure for a while.

This has become a political issue because some who have a financial stake in “business as usual” have made it an objective to stir up controversy where none exists.

For example, the American Petroleum Institute (& Exxon-Mobile) learned a lesson from the tobacco/nicotine issue and actively tried to convince the American people that global warming was controversial within the scientific community. Here is a link to an API memo that was obtained by Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/leaked-api-comms-plan-1998

Also, Frank Luntz advised members of the GOP to try to convince their constituents that the science was still uncertain - to focus on any little uncertainty and try to extrapolate this into total uncertainty.

Thus, the fact that a few have a large financial stake in convincing the many not to look behind the curtain, is why this scientific issue has become fodder for the opinions of know-nothings.

(BTW, John B., please do not mistake a denier for being a skeptic. Deniers are those who start with an ideology and refuse to acknowledge the existence of (literally) tons of evidence. The term ’skeptic’ accurately describes any scientist. Scientists are inherently skeptical and conservative in that they are reluctant to jump on bandwagons but will change their minds when presented with evidence. This is why it has taken several decades of research and evidence gathering and hypothesis testing for the scientific community to publish the shocking statements of the most recent IPCC report.)