The first “controversy” was brought up by a science FICTION writer, not a scientist. “Egan is a famously reclusive author when it comes to public appearances, he doesn’t attend science fiction conventions, doesn’t sign books and there are no photos available of him on the web. He has bachelor’s degree in mathematics. WIKI

Controversy #2 centered on the COVER of the magazine that scientists found to sensationalist: “Darwin is Wrong”. “The actual STORY stated that specific details of Darwin’s evolution theory had been shown wrong, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.” The “controversy” was that real scientists were worried that the COVER of the magazine would fuel the nut cases who don’t believe in evolution but prefer the idea of “intelligent design”.

The science was not called into question (at least according to the link you sent).

The third controversy seems more complex and it appears that New Science has some explaining to do. Hasnian says he was misquoted. Perhaps they will explain in the next issue. But let’s look at how “off” they were. And let’s see if this really changes anything.

In response to the quote, Hasnain says, “I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast.”

The scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, a glacier specialist …..said in an e-mail message that he was “misquoted” about the 2035 estimate in The New Scientist article. He has more recently said that his research suggests that only small glaciers could disappear entirely.

But

“The Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 — that is an overstatement,” said Dr. Bodo Bookhagen, an assistant professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara who studies the effect of climate change at high altitudes….. “Still, he added: “It is very clear that there is glacier retreat and that it has devastating impact.”

At an international conference last year on Asia’s glaciers, held at the University of California, San Diego, Yao Tandong, a Chinese glaciologist who specializes in the Tibetan Plateau, said, “Studies indicate that by 2030 another 30 percent will disappear; by 2050, 40 percent; and by the end of the century 70 percent.” He added: “Actually we don’t know much about process and impacts of the disappearance. That’s why we need an international effort.”

So how fast is fast? And where are the prominent scientists saying, “No the glaciers are not melting?” Now that would be a good controversy. For instance, “Prominent scientist disagree that glaciers are melting.” But that isn’t in question and that isn’t the controversy. Hasnain says that small glaciers could disappear entirely. That doesn’t really help clarify much because I don’t know what a small glacier is (as opposed to a medium sized one or a big glacier.) So I looked it up.

I guess you don’t believe in the National Geographic either, eh? Because in this 2007 issue here is what they have to say:

“The rapid melt of small glaciers and mountain ice caps will be the main source of sea level rise over the next century, according to a new study.’
The research, led by Mark Meier of the University of Colorado at Boulder, also suggests that sea levels could rise more during the 21st century than had previously been thought.”
“….But it’s a different story for smaller patches of ice. “
“Many of the glaciers are at or close to the melting point,” Meier said. These glaciers, and also ice caps at high latitudes (closer to the Poles), are individually much smaller than the big ice sheets.
“Factoring in the additional, gradual thaw of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Meier and colleagues estimated that sea levels could rise as much as 22 inches (56 centimeters) by 2100 due to ice melt alone.”
“This forecast is worse than the worst-case forecast in the report issued this year by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects the scientific consensus on global warming.”
The researchers are “right on the mark with their discussion of tidewater glacier instability,” said Richard Williams, a glacier expert with the United States Geological Survey.
Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says he’s skeptical about the new study’s predictions, in part because some glaciers will disappear completely over the coming century.
“They don’t take that into account properly,” Trenberth said. “But yes, I think sea levels will rise more than IPCC suggests.”
_——————————————————————————————————-
What?? “Will rise MORE than the IPCC suggests?”
So please, where are the studies that say the small or the large glaciers are not melting? This “controversy” is about the date, right? And it has been clarified. The controversy (at least from what you state) is not about the fact that the glaciers are melting and that the see levels are rising because of it.
Come on…get some kick-ass, peer –reviewed scientific studies that disprove some of the important data. Right now, this is swatting flies.

So who are some of the famous folk who believe this is a hoax? Well Senator Inhofe, for one. You know, the guy who “is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and voted against prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Inhofe’s office has said he “does not hire openly gay staffers due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda.” He is the God, guns and Gays, man. I assume you must be gay if you are reading this blog, so even if you are with him about global warming, he would not hire you because you are gay.

He also said “I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.” (I guess he must be ashamed that Ronald Regan was a divorced man, eh?)

Oh yeah, he also is the guy who, in March 2002, made a speech before the U.S. Senate “that included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel.” Divine retribution, eh?

And he is the man who,
“In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations),
leadership pacs ($316,720)
and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).

While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a “long-term” fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of “everybody” on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.

But on the other hand: “I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority.” Uh…if it is a hoax, then what is he talking about?

Declaring climate change to be an indisputable threat, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan to combat global warming by setting goals for reducing California’s emissions of greenhouse gases.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, insisting he is “100 percent committed” to running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, wooed Silicon Valley’s tech leaders Monday — saying he “definitely” believes in global warming, praising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for being a “progressive” leader on the environment and calling for immigration policies that welcome “people who make contributions” to America’s economy.

Mike Huckabee:
For one thing, I’m one of the few people who’s actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we’ve been the last people speaking out on conservation.
Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it’s important to me to say to my fellow believers, “Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us.” We can’t justify destroying a planet that doesn’t belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it

On your comment #42 – On the Guardian article. Note how you don’t address the meat of the article concerning the state of the peer review process and automatically go to the silly parts. AND I’m not sure that using research from New Scientist, you know, the source that provided the material that has gotten the IPCC into so much hot water is a good idea. NS is not a bad magazine per-se, but has themselves publish a few doozies now and again.

The Daily Express ran a long story headlined: “100 reasons why global warming is natural”. It said the list came from a “dossier” issued by the European Foundation, a UK-based right-wing group that campaigns mostly against European integration. But two months on, the dossier has not been published. Most of the hundred reasons were either meaningless or scientific nonsense, according to New Scientist magazine, which gave up after debunking the first 50.

Here is a perfect example of what I have been saying: Guys you say you have a 100 reasons…so ( to quote George W. Bush) ” Bring ‘em on!”

Geoengineering: Plan B Remedy for Global Warming
Andrew A. Lacis
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Accelerated melting of Greenland ice is a clear indication that consequences of global warming are real and impending. The underlying causes of global warming are well enough understood, but the necessary reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent irreversible climate change is unlikely to happen before the point of no return is reached. To reverse the impending sea level rise, geoengineering countermeasures may be required to counter the current global energy imbalance due to global warming. Of the many proposed remedies, deploying aerosols within the stratosphere offers realistic prospects. Sulfur injections in the lower stratosphere would have the cooling effect of naturally occurring volcanic aerosols. Soot at 40-50 km would be more efficient in cooling the ground surface, but at the cost of heating up the middle atmosphere. Should serious action ever be taken to combat global warming, then all options, including reduction of the greenhouse gases, will need to be fully considered and evaluated for their feasibility, environmental impact, and economic cost. Geoengineering countermeasures are clearly not a cure for the global warming problem, but they may buy time while atmospheric greenhouse gases are brought under control into a sustainable long-term equilibrium.

but what you are saying is that the science that brought us the spaceships and drones, miracles in modern medicine , and electronics, computers, internet and satellites , wireless communication and even the GPS you may be using is rubbish, right?

What are you talking about? Where in my previous comment do I ever hint at that. What you are doing is presenting a false dichotomy – if I don’t agree with all of the science or the way it has been conducted, then I am automatically against all science. You have no basis to make that accusation. In fact, if you would kindly read my first comment on this tread, your assertion above looks pretty foolish.

PS. Though I don’t have my degree in the field, I was a geology major in college, specializing in seismology… before calc killed the dream. Just curious, what is your background?

The man who can disprove global warming will be the most famous man on earth. So where is he? Where is that information? Who are you, personally, placing your bets on? What’s his name? How close has he gotten to breaking this? Where is the guy with the real statistics?

And what scientists are, as you say, “paying the price”? There have been accusations that look, on the surface, that there have been wrongdoings, until it gets seriously investigated (see report above). So who has been chastised or disgraced by the scientific community for falsifying data? What major premise has been overturned?

PS to Livewire: “Lying for grant money”, eh? If you are right, then they will be discovered. If they work for a big university it will be a huge and embarrassing blow to the department and the institution. So what will happen to these liars? The scientist who has been found guilty of falsifying data will be a pariah and will be dismissed or asked to resign. Why would anyone take that risk?

As far as scientists wanting to “curtail the economy” boy, that’s a new one to me! When the economy is bustling more money rolls in for projects. When the economy is down, belts are tightened and grants dry up. Fewer grants mean more competition and more stringent rules for the few dollars around. Why would they want that?

There is no power advantage to blindly agreeing with everyone else. Quite the contrary. “Publish or perish” in the academic world. And it better be good because all eyes are on you. Someone can become famous for proving you wrong.

So, why go to all the trouble to hide the decline, use “tricks” to bolster your ideas, and obfuscate the code and methodologies that you’ve built your scientific consensus on? I’ve been following this debate intently since 1992, and unlike some here, I don’t buy the “grand conspiracy” theory. However, what is very likely is that the leaders of the field of climate science let their passions for their work, and their certainty that they are right, cloud their judgment on how to behave in the scientific realm, thus they gave their stamp of approval on exaggerating and lying about the effects of global warming, and are paying the price now for the implementation of that policy.

There is no power advantage to blindly agreeing with everyone else. Quite the contrary. “Publish or perish” in the academic world. And it better be good because all eyes are on you. Someone can become famous for proving you wrong.

Contrast this with the way some political parties operate. When a group votes and speaks in lockstep, rather than as individuals, the party gains powers, but the individuals in the party are castrated. They are like eunuchs in the harem protecting the wives of the sultan. They may look and act ferocious, they perform a great service, they live in the Palace, but they are kept around because of what they can’t do! Every time the party silences dissent, I hear the snip-snip of the scissors. The party does not want men with brains and balls, they want foot soldiers who never contradict. Those who contradict will (and do!) lose the support of the party. Actually, that sounds rather cult-like, doesn’t it?

The world of science is not a cult, or one big happy family; it is a world of thousand of rival kingdoms and fiefdoms and tyrants and egos fighting for position. In the world of science, the man or woman who never contradicts or challeges will disappear into obscurity. That person will lose his grants, lose his position, lose his prestige and, in the case of a major university position, never get tenure.

Doe you realize that the person who can disprove global warming with most certainly get a Noble Prize? The little “David” who can knock down the Goliath of what you think is a cult will be Rambo, Einstein and George Clooney wrapped in one! So far Goliath has gotten his toes scratched and a few bruises that are barely noticeable.

Be careful what you wish for. Many prestigious American scientists and scientific organizations will come tumbling down like a house of cards if this is a hoax, right? If this is a hoax, the lies, the deceits, the manipulation of data, the funding…all of this will eventually come to light. If this hoax is exposed by a group from another country, what will the international headlines say about us? If the hoax is exposed by an American, then the world will say that America has SAVED THE DAY!!! My point is that we should pray that little David is American.

BTW: as far as Trofim Lysenko is concerned, North Dallas Thirty has missed my point completely (perhaps he got too excited watching the game?) This is a global issue, not local. It was possible to control the press in the USSR, it is not possible to control the international press or to control the sharing of information in the international world of science. It just isn’t.

Followed by:

So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?

So let’s see; Mark and his fellow AGW cultists are insisting that we must cover up scientific failures and make results look right for the glory of the State.

I have two words for that: “Trofim Lysenko”.

Everyone is in agreement that the future of America is directly related to our progress in the fields of science. If so many of our prestigious scientists are either lying or are stupid (which is what they would have to be if this is a hoax) then this is much more serious than global warming. It means that our standing in the international scientific community will plummet. America will no longer be the leader but the loser. Is that what you believe?

And if this science is false, who will prove it false? Will it be a great Chinese organization, or will it come from India? Perhaps it will be French scientists. Will it be he Germans? Won’t America look ridiculous? Don’t you think the Chinese scientists would LOVE to prove the Americans wrong? They would be heroes in their country. What about the French? Wouldn’t they like to gloat about this to the international community: “Prominent Americans scientists proven wrong by the French Academy of Science.” After all they tried to tell us there were no WWDs in Iraq but we wouldn’t listen.

So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?

There, I have just ‘proved’ Mark doesn’t have a clue the same way he ‘proved’ global warming is valid

Mark has no clue what he’s talking about.

Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM (McIntyre and McKitrick)are demonstrably false,

Really? It would have been nice to have provided the source of that assertion, which is Michael Mann @ RealClimate – not exactly a neutral observer in this debate. The fact that you’ve just copied and paste this suggests that you’ve spent little time actually looking into this issue and are just parroting the party line. You might want to read the Wegman Report for a little more clarity. It reads:

* MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be “somewhat obscure and incomplete” and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be “valid and compelling.”
* The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. “It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.” (Section 4)
* The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing “warm period” in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
* It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
* A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction is described of at least 43 authors with direct ties to Mann by virtue of having coauthored papers with him. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a “hypothesis”, and “should be taken with a grain of salt.”[45]
* Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the “independent studies” so these “cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”[46]
* It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though its members rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data, and results was done haphazardly and begrudgingly.
* Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.

Yes, I got that summary from Wiki (I’m pressed for time) but it gives a good list of the problems with MBH.

Here is a BIG problem. Sure more pro-AGW peer reviewed papers are published than non. But that’s going to happen when you apply undue influence on the peer review process in order to maintain your dominant position in the scientific community. Here is Mann, concerned that JRL is publishing a paper that goes against the dogma. Here is the result – the editor who “allowed” the paper to go through is ousted. I provide more detail Here.

All of your global citations of agreed horrors are all based on the original AGW data that has been called into question.

There has been ZERO independent research that doesn’t tie back to the IPCC or the UK group.