A good start is: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

And for people who want to see for themselves the data files, atmospheric measures of the past 50 years are available here:
cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2

and measures of the past 420,000 years through ice core analysis are here:
cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat

and this is just the tip of the (melting;) iceberg...

So please, before you write about scientific research, do your own (research)...

That's the reason you keep saying "The issue here isn’t the validity of climate change itself, but the integrity of the research and the researchers."

This is nothing but a dodge, so you DON'T have to talk about the validity of climate change itself.

Do you have better science cred than the NAS?

If so, maybe you better explain why.

The same problem applies to the NAS jjens. Don't you get it. The problem is that the peer reviewed literature has a problem. I'm not saying that it is all wrong, but at least make the freaking data and source code available.

And for the last damn time you are off topic. The issue here isn't the validity of climate change itself, but the integrity of the research and the researchers. Right now, it isn't looking to good.

Stop smoking the straw from your strawman and get a clue.

tc,

Yeah, except that isn't all of it. Oh...and note the dates there, and Mann's public statments he wont give McIntyre and Mckitrik some of the code they've been asking for. Color me unimpressed.

Do you have better science cred than the NAS?

If so, maybe you better explain why.

ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/

But I don’t think that is the big picture. I think the big picture is captured by this simple story: The IPCC came up with their study of global warming. The Bush adminstration wasn’t sure if they should trust it, so they asked the National Academy of Sciences to review it. The NAS ceratinly knows “what science is about is data and sound analysis.” The NAS agreed with the IPCC study.

First, this is beside the point of my article. Second, you have missed the implication here for your story. I'll be really clear about this:

The IPCC uses peer reviewed literature as the basis for the policy postions that come out of the IPCC. One of the biggest pieces of evidence is Mann et. al.'s "hockey stick".

Now do you see the problem? If Mann et. al. turns out to be bogus, and there is no global warming then Mann, Bradley and Hughes. should be flayed alive career-wise. If Mann et. al. turns out to be bogus and there is global warming then they should be flayed alive (again career-wise) for being such complete idiots. If Mann et. al. turns out to be valid they should still be willing to share their data, source code, etc. and not make such misleading statements in peer reviewed literature.

Being misleading (lying?) is not usually a good thing in science. One way to minimize that is by sharing data, source code, etc.

Anyhow, yes I think man affects the climate, but on a tiny scale. I'll re-evaluate that belief when Mann and others explain how we are affecting Mars and several moons of the giants Saturn and Jupiter, which some astronomers say are warming "at an alarming rate" (circa early 2004).

But I don't think that is the big picture. I think the big picture is captured by this simple story: The IPCC came up with their study of global warming. The Bush adminstration wasn't sure if they should trust it, so they asked the National Academy of Sciences to review it. The NAS ceratinly knows "what science is about is data and sound analysis." The NAS agreed with the IPCC study.

That is more than "some scientists" and that is why I think this is "conservatives" versus "science" itself.

Sites like this one raise whatever point issues they think will continue the fight, rather than accept the NAS conclusions and talk about solutions.

I think that amounts to a politically motivated rejection of science.

While agreement in the sense that people hold the same beliefs on a scientific issue are to some degree important they aren't the only thing, and are a side benefit if anything. What science is about is data and sound analysis. To that end sharing data and providing access to source code for statistical and numerical analysis is a necessary step towards both good science and agreement. Yet here you are hectoring "conservative" to "get with it" with out clearly understanding what I've written.

I think the scientific flow now favors anthropogenic warming.

I would tend to say there is alot of validity to this...if they were willing to share their data even with the naysayers. You are making no sense here. Fine the opponents of global warming are "conservative", whatever that means, but that still does nothing to obviate the point of my post here.

An emotional rant in opposition isn't going to change that.

What's really sad here is that it has become a "conservative versus science" thing. Scientists generally agree, and (many) conservatives can't deal with that.

It makes me sad to be a scientifically educated) conservative.

You need to get a freaking clue. For one thing, even if Mann et. al. turn out to be completely bogus and is thoroughly trashed it doesn't mean that anthropogenic warming is NOT happening. The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Further, at least making the data and source code available for those studies incorporated into the IPCC reports strikes me as not only reasonable but sane. Why are you opting for the insane solution?

Ken,

You are a complete and total idiot. Where is the claim in this post that I said there is no warming? Oh...nowhere. Get your head out of your ass.

Surfing the web, it is painfully obvious that people with conservative political sites are determined to be "the last people to get" global warming.

FWIW I'm a conservative, but like James Baker, I think enough evidence has piled up. We should be spending our mental energies on finding creative solutions, rather than spending our time cherry-picking news stories that might cause doubt.

At this point, we should be advancing market-friendly solutions.