Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

Tue, 2011-05-03 08:52Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

On climate change, we’re politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that’s not all. The hole we’ve dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.

There’s yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska. 

Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon: Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.

Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue,” writes Hamilton. “Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.”

This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.

How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.

Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They’re not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton’s study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it’s hot out, maybe they’ll worry. If it’s cold, they’ll scoff.)

Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That’s unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding. 

 

Comments

I could care less about the pay arrangements at the IPCC. It is the organization itself which will, if at all possible, perpetuate itself. Your dimwitted accusations persist !

"I could care less about the pay arrangements at the IPCC."

Before:

"A group like the IPCC would basically put itself out of business by spending big bucks and concluding that they have no evidence."

That was responded with:

"IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the IPCC."

But Go Figure is worried about a world conspiracy to get grant money. Oddly enough, the pot for grants is, if anything, significantly smaller now than before. This means that any grant going toward AGW research isn't going toward Astrophysics.

Yet the governing bodies of over 200 sciences have supported the IPCC's conclusions as robust.

If anyone is trying to get more funding, it's the deniers who scream "we need researching on the subject before we can stop burning fossil fuels".

And where is the research on the Iron Sun theory? I guess it must be true because we only hear about the hydrogen sun and I guess you'd insist that the suppression is because anyone proving the Iron Sun would lose billions in grants.

Your insanity is showing. Get some meds, they help with paranoia.

Another site I visit, with current information on sea level rate of increase and satellite recordings of temperature. One would think that, at some point, (long since past) the AGW proponents would begin to suspect that perhaps there is some basis for the skepticism. It should be getting a bit confusing for those poor souls still hiding behind that sign: "the science is settled" ?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html

The science is NEVER settled !

No scientist or any of us ever say that the science is settled, that usage is an invention of those who you read and believe in.

I have been aware of that hockeyschtickshit site for some time. Most people when the see faeces avoid stepping in it, obviously not you.

Here is a suggestion, why not try reading some of these books:

Book list from

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/books/

Mostly the science:

Climate Change: Picturing the science – Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe

Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change And What It Means For Our Future – John Cox

The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change – David Archer and Stefan Rahmstorf

A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions – Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley

Communicating on Climate Change – An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators – Bud Ward

Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – Michael Mann and Lee Kump

The Discovery of Global Warming – Spencer Weart

Forecast: The Consequences of Climate Change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley – Stephan Faris

Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert

Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer

The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer

Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert – on order

The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet – Mark Lynas

The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate – Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson

What We Know About Climate Change – Kerry Emanuel

The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations – Eugene Linden

With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change – Fred Pearce

Now one more not on that TheWayThings Break list as yet:
The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor)

Paleoclimate/Climate-related:

The Complete Ice Age: How Climate Change Shaped the World – Brian Fagan (ed.)

Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes – Kerry Emanuel

Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations – Brian Fagan

Frozen Earth: The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages – Doug Macdougall

The Great Ice Age: Climate Change and Life – J. A. Chapman

The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death – Richardson B. Gill

The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations – Brian Fagan

The Holocene: An Environmental History – Neil Roberts

Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery – John Imbrie

Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past – Chris Turney

The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 – Brian Fagan

The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization – Brian Fagan

Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary – Ray Bradley

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate – William Ruddiman

The Rising Sea – Orrin H. Pilkey and Rob Young

Solar Activity and Earth’s Climate – Rasmus Benestad

Snowball Earth: The Story of a Maverick Scientist and His Theory of the Global Catastrophe That

Spawned Life As We Know It – Gabrielle Walker

Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World’s Highest Mountains – Mark Bowen

The Tree Rings’ Tale: Understanding Our Changing Climate – John Fleck

The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Richard Alley

Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future – Peter Ward

The Wave: In the Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks and Giants of the Ocean – Susan Casey

Policy/Politics/PR:

Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future – Jeff Goodell

Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate

Crisis – And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster – Ross Gelbspan

Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global

Warming – Mark Bowen

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan

The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth – Eric Pooley

Earth: The Sequel: The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming – Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn

Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning – George Monbiot

The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription – Ross Gelbspan

Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do – Joseph Romm

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy – Donald Gutstein

Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis – Al Gore

Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment – James Gustave Speth

The Republican War on Science – Chris Mooney

Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate – Stephen Schneider

Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming – Chris Mooney

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – James Hansen

Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions – Joe Romm

You will then save yourself much embarrassment by actually learning the facts rather than opinion dressed up as fact.

Also, your general scientific perspectives need broadening. One author good for such a job is Richard Dawkins who has brought together an excellent collection of snippets from some of the most incisive minds in many disciplines of science:

The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Book-Modern-Science-Writing/dp/0199216800/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305024049&sr=1-2

I offer the UK Amazon link for the reviews there, why none from the US as yet I wonder for I know not all Americans think as you do.

Now that BTW is not an ad hominum but a statement of fact.

When somebody repeats like spam the same ol', same ol' rather than engage with the alternative material offered then that somebody should expect derision of some form, it goes with the territory rather like the naughty child shouting, 'No! No!' whilst holding its hands over its ears because it doesn't like the message.

So, stop behaving in a juvenile fashion and also look up the true meaning of ad hominum for that opening phrase of this sentence is not an example of such for it is not calling you juvenile.

From Wiki:

Ad hominum – '....questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.'

You can't explain the several warmer periods already experienced during this interglacial, nor the fact that there is no data showing any relationship between CO2 and temperature (except the reverse correlation), neither short-term nor long-term,nor will you even deign to admit the existence of the 900+ peer-reviewed studies confirming that the MWP was as warm,likely warmer than the current (now stalled out) warming period.

Actually,I just revisited www.co2science.org, and now there are 967 such studies (by scientists, representing 560 research institutions in 43 different countries ! (How can any rational being just blow that off?) You are one of the many true believers (poor soul !)

Finally, my google-doc (for starters) contains numerous references which you no doubt will also ignore .... why in that case would you expect anyone to bother readng any of your reference list?

Do you ever stop appealing to (as it turns out, very questiolnable) authority?

So GoFigure, you don't like to "appeal to authority"? So when you have medical problems such as dizziness or forgetfulness do you disdain the authority of neurologists and get advice from a plumber, or maybe a postman?

That comment:

"Do you ever stop appealing to (as it turns out, very questiolnable (sic)) authority?"

Just shows how ignorant and uneducated you are. Why do you hate science and scientists so much (neurologists are scientists)?

Keep up the good work, you are really showing the educational and intelligence (lack of) of AGW deniers. Do you actually have a job? Has someone found a position for you that is at the really, really low end of the achievement scale?

I'm sure that there must be a few "Denis Ables" who are getting very embarrassed by being mistaken for you.

If I have to go to a doctor (which happens to be rare, thankfully, given that I'm 76 years old this month), I am certainly not above questioning his authority, particularly if there's some major issues involved. (Have you not heard of 2nd opinions? P L E A S E .....

You just keep asking for another opinion until you get one you like.

This isn't questioning authority, this is denial.

who is impossible to pin to the wall.

Come on prove me wrong.

Please specify the following:

'this interglacial'

'900+ peer-reviewed studies'

'967 such studies'

'560 research institutions'

'in 43 different countries'

You write:

'How can any rational being just blow that off?'

Easily, for all of the above are excercises in blowing smoke and flashing mirrors to confuse the ignorant. It seems to have worked in your case. You realy should spend less time at places like CO2 science but you don't know enough to realise that yet. That is why I posted a list of reading material.

On CO2 Science read this from

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=657

:

quote

'Frankly, CO2 Science has something of a history. It is the newsletter for the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change.”

And here is some background on that organization:

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to “disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.” The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that’s good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secr.etive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UCSUSA: Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
http://www.ususa.org/…html'
unquote

Idso affiliations (but I guess you already know this because you are a part of all this obfuscation):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=Idso&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search

See also Desmogs own and, Idso's aside, check out the stuff on these

Sallie Baliunas

Willie Soon

On that basis this is what Skeptical Science, and all the other honest scientists and commentators have to say about the MWP:

quote

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

unquote

from

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Hint. All those sources, books, that I listed are chock full of scientific statements that can be checked out to source and authenticated. This is not an appeal to authority but to evidence backed facts.

Have you read Chapter 6 of Physical Science Base of the IPCC FAR?

Keep going though for every reply provides another opportunity to bring realiable sources to the attention of other visitors curiuous about the fuss here. If you are being mendacious rather than plain ignorant then you are defeating your own purpose.

... and you don't even recognize that your argument is nothing more than an attack on co2science.org.

You must believe that the folks at that website have been directly involved in the 967 studies? (You can randomly pick out a few, and read the study, call the people and/or the organization, etc.) These are all scientists. For all I know, some of them might be AGW proponents. (Of course, as either Jones or Mann has been quoted, "it's a different ball game if the MWP was global rather than regional". (They're probably sorry about that quote too!)

It's worth noting that, on the "skeptical" sites most (not all) of the back and forth involves debate at the technical level. (Anthony Watts Site, Joanne Nova's site come immediately to mind, but there are numerous others). On the "warmist" sites, the quibbling sounds as if it's all coming from a bunch of politicians, hate-mongers, name-callers, whatever. You evidently cannot understand even a simple concept such as "scientific method". You call models "evidence" when there is none. Not only are the models laughable (and I've been involved in some serious computer models back in the old days at Pratt & Whitney which dealt with real stuff and could be checked against lab experiments.)

Climate change is ongoing. Unfortunately climate includes chaotic influences. We're a long way from being able to simulate climate. Incidentally, those hot spots in the troposphere ain't there, but I'm sure you're in denial on that as well.

It's clear you poor souls are merely dues paying members of the Church of AGW. You don't even understand that, as a skeptic, I don't have to prove anything. Those claiming that man impacts temperature must show some evidence. Arguing that the computer models would not work without incorporating GHG data is a nonstarter.

It's also contradictory to argue that on the one hand the CO2 in the atmosphere has been constant for hundreds of thousands of years, and only recently began increasing as a result of the industrial revolution. (so far, so good). But, on the other hand, claiming that CO2 was higher during the little ice age, just a few hundred years ago, and so was cooler - does not compute. You can't have it both ways.

Oops. I'm sorry, I accidentally slipped back into some (minor) direct technical chatter which is evidently verboten on this site.

Adios.

blathered
'You call models "evidence" when there is none. Not only are the models laughable...'
That demonstrates that you are naive about the nature and use of climate models.
Here is a primer:
FAQ on climate models
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

more here

Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

You blathered
'Climate change is ongoing. Unfortunately climate includes chaotic influences.'
Of course climate change is ongoing, has the frigging universe stopped.

Now as for chaotic influences what do you mean. Chaos means different things to scientists and the public i.e. general usage.

Any engineer worth his salt knows that if a system is perturbed by some forcing agent then responses, variability, becomes more marked and erratic reaching new extremes and will stay in this state until damped out. When excited like this the system will, if left alone, attenuate these larger movements of whatever about the mean until it settles down in a new state at a higher energy level. As somebody who has worked at P&W you should appreciate this, like many an auto mechanic from throttle hunting and also reheat, sorry afterburner buzz. So it is with climate. Extra GHGs in the atmosphere apply a forcing which will, over time, raise the temperature until a new balance of radiative transfer is achieved. How big that temperature rise is known as the climate sensitivity.
There is a very good chapter on climate variability in 'Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach' by William James Burroughs (not Edgar Rice Burroughs which is more equivalent to the stuff one finds at your favourite sources – science fiction). Note the Multidisciplinary in the title for that is what climate change study is and William Burroughs does provide an excellent overview of most topics including GCRs and climate models. Oceanography is also a multidisciplinary field of study which also provides a good basis for understanding the bigger picture here.

However there are a number of feedbacks, positive and negative but currently the positive are in charge the main one being more water vapour in the atmosphere which leads to extra warming. Check out lapse rate. (see Archer – already cited above)

Now that latter of course has a direct bearing on your 'hot spot' meme. You are confused and that is because you read too much Joanne Nova as SkepticalScience explains (the diagrams are very like the ones Michaels suddenly popped up, out of context with his written testimony, during that house committee science thing last year where Santer nicely slapped him down:
What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

and more recently
Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

Now the full extent of all positive forcings were not included in the IPCC FAR and this was one of the reasons behind major scientific disquiet. Not because the IPCC projections of temperature rise were too high but because they were too low. Quite the antithesis of that reported in the denialosphere.

We are witnessing some of those feedbacks kicking in right now one being the increase in methane releases due to permafrost melt and sea floor (or lake floor) clathrate release. This has been widely reported but sidestepped by most mainstream media and certainly by the likes of Michaels, Lindzen, & co. This is why any effort by those two in particular to diminish climate sensitivity is negligent at best and dishonest at worst.

You blathered:
'We're a long way from being able to simulate climate. Incidentally, those hot spots in the troposphere ain't there, but I'm sure you're in denial on that as well.'

Mole whacked above.

Now you get really delusional
'It's clear you poor souls are merely dues paying members of the Church of AGW. '
That and 'warmist' are standard denier claptrap.

The mad hatter remarked:
'You don't even understand that, as a skeptic, I don't have to prove anything.'

Well you have proved one thing, that you don't know as much as you think you do. Said Alice. I ask you which Alice that could have been?

'Those claiming that man impacts temperature must show some evidence.'
They have and repeatedly only the ideological blind and self made ignorant would have missed this.
Read or watch Archer, perhaps you are too ignorant of true scientific method to appreciate the foundation of Archer's lectures and writings. See 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' and 'The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate' where you will discover how wrong you are about so many things. Wally Broecker's 'The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change' also provides useful background.

My trouble with you is where to begin. Maybe it is more why bother? You are either too stupid or too mendacious to study this subject fully using sound scientific sources and not those corrupted by fossil fuel money.

You repeat
'Arguing that the computer models would not work without incorporating GHG data is a nonstarter.'
Ah! Computer models again. You really are thrashing about eh! Go read the above cited literature.

Now you totally lose it:
'It's also contradictory to argue that on the one hand the CO2 in the atmosphere has been constant for hundreds of thousands of years, and only recently began increasing as a result of the industrial revolution. (so far, so good). But, on the other hand, claiming that CO2 was higher during the little ice age, just a few hundred years ago, and so was cooler - does not compute. You can't have it both ways.'

A too confused statement to even begin to answer, it falls into the category of 'not even wrong'.

Now you elevate your understanding above its true state - you are clearly perturbed - watch out for the feedbacks:

'Oops. I'm sorry, I accidentally slipped back into some (minor) direct technical chatter...'

Well I never noticed any from your direction.

Now don't stay an ignorant engineer, a surprising number of whom turn up on these various faux petitions like the Arthur Robinson one, along with film stars and starlets, singers and even cartoon characters. Funny that.

"Adios".

You won't be missed since we know that your junk science and rubbish sites do not contain any science at all.

You ain't getting off the hook that easily Pedro.

When parties on both sides of a debate can both appeal to authority there’s unfortunately nothing to do but to look into the facts yourself, and try to resolve the issue to your own satisfaction. I, too, could appeal to authorities (all credible, most with doctorates in related fields, and books as well as numerous publications, such as Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Robert M. Carter (New Zealand professor), Svensmark, Tim Ball (worked at the IPCC), Motl, McIntyre, … you get the idea.

I would have to also include the 963 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the global existence of the Medieval Warming Period as a very definite authority. Attacking the www.co2science.org website which has merely compiled this information is known, at least in other circles, as “killing the messenger”.

The website of Joanne Nova has for several years now had an open invitation for credible AGW proponents to debate – the best kind of debate, where each side can study the others’ response and carefully draft their rebuttal, then sit back and wait for the response to that. The rules can be further simplified, to restrict the discussion to a particular issue for (say) 4 or 5 iterations (the missing “hot spot”, or the MWP, or the hockey stick graph – whatever). I only know of one participant who volunteered. His arguments should have embarrassed even him (but, in fairness, I can’t believe he had any help in that matter, nor was his background all that relevant. In fact, as I recall, he wasn’t even a climatologist. ) The debate was kept technical, was completely one-sided, but that was not Nova’s fault. This guy must have been too arrogant to even ask for help. On the other hand, neither Jones or Mann, or Romm, or Hansen, or any of the better known proponents of AGW even considered volunteering, and I have no doubts that some of them knew about it. If I were a warmist that would really bother me. If a scientist really believes there is evidence of AGW, why in heaven would he/she pass up such an opportunity?

Rather interesting that, when the global warming issue finally became publicly controversial, one of the popular claims by the warmist/alarmists was: “just follow the money”. It turns out that our government, under both parties has spent billions in grants related to global warming. It dwarfs the funds contributed by lobbyists and oil companies, even if you assume every cent was devoted to squelching the AGW claim. I challenge anyone to determine out how much of that money went to skeptics. And, scientists or not, it is naïve to expect those feeding at this practically open-ended gravy train to be quick to criticize the source of their funds. It turns out that practically all of the skeptics were those not availing themselves of any of those funds.

Now, let’s take a look at the United Nations’ IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Look at the name of this organization. Would you really expect this institution, after several years and lots of money down the tubes, to report something like – ahh well, we can’t find any real evidence that man is impacting the climate in any way, but nonetheless we believe that’s the case.

The warmists’ devote considerable time to investigating the agenda of any skeptic, (which is fine) but pay no attention to the really questionable activities by the IPCC and its CRUs. Actually, it should be the opposite. You want to be sure that those you believe are credible.

One of the visitors to this site immediately googled my name and noted that I haven’t published any papers. (Well, not counting numerous letters to editors of various newspapers, and such.) I doubt that this same person took notice that the guy running the show at the UN was a railroad engineer from India who, apart from making baseless claims about glaciers advancing and other unverified stuff was devoting a good deal of his time to making big money (related to his position at the UN) and writing porn novels.

Then you have the CRU scientists refusing to obey FOI requirements for years--- that’s YEARS, and that should involve slammer time . In fact, Jones was evidently willing to destroy some information if necessary. (ClimateGate emails). And it turns out that now even the raw land surface temperature data is missing . All that remains is the “revised” temperature data, with, of course, insufficient documentation as to exactly how and what revisions were made to temperature data and dating back many years. As knowledgeable people began looking further into the situation, it turns out that the available 6,000 land temperature recording sites were, over time, filtered down to just 1,500. Again, no reason provided for why so many sites were being ignored. And most of those sites that were eliminated appeared to be at high latitudes (northerly, so cooler) or at high altitudes (cooler). Finally, it turns out (AnthonyWatts site) that some 90% of the land surface temperature sites do not even satisfy the government’s own minimal specifications. Numerous volunteers , responding to Watts site (WUWT) have provided studies, including pictures, which make clear the many problems. (By stating this, I am not arguing that we’ve had no warming over the past century or two– only that – if we have, it’s sheer luck that we were able to figure that out, given the shoddy research.) Russian authorities have noted that only about half of its land temperature recording sites were used, and Russia covers a lot of territory, and (for some unknown reason) those were generally in warmer areas. Gentlemen: where is all your suspicion hiding?

Not only were most of the first critics of AGW active scientists with tenure who were not feeding at the grant trough, many retiree scientists (not subject to harassment – or job termination) also began investigating for themselves and quickly joined the “skeptics”, (the “flat-earthers” as Al Gore would put it). In fact, it’s now been well established that much of the opposition has no outside funding at all.

Then we have the “hockey stick graph”. It’s available all over the web. Someone on this site offered a quote from Mann, apparently claiming that he didn’t “disappear” the MWP and the little ice age. I ask the reader to google the hockey stick graph, (it’s all over the internet) and then investigate graphs showing temperature over the entire interglacial period, but at least those back to the MWP. You’ll probably not find valid graphs on most warmist sites. Claiming that Mann didn’t erase the MWP and the little ice age reminds me of that Marx brothers query: “Are you gonna believe me or your own eyes ”?

This “skeptic/warmist” issue is, unfortunately, not unique. I’m old enough to be able to recall, as a kid, all the people with serious ulcer problems. It turned out that veterinarians had recognized and solved a similar problem in animals some 50 years before and at that time and thereafter suggested it to the medical profession. That’s how long it took for the medical “profession” to recognize that a little inexpensive pink pill solved the problem. But, in this case of climate there appear to be as many skeptics with credentials just as strong, as or stronger than the warmists “scientists”, and there is the internet. The major news media has pretty much remained in denial. That will, unfortunately, contribute to their demise.

The internet has been the only authentic peer-review of the dastardly deeds done by the IPCC and its CRUs, among other ilk.

I'm not going to waste my time by rebutting every piece of rubbish in this post but will correct one bit of gross incompetence.

GoFigure said:

"As knowledgeable people began looking further into the situation, it turns out that the available 6,000 land temperature recording sites were, over time, filtered down to just 1,500. Again, no reason provided for why so many sites were being ignored. And most of those sites that were eliminated appeared to be at high latitudes (northerly, so cooler)"

This one comment shows that GoFigure knows nothing about climate science or how temperature graphs (e.g. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif) are constructed. Anyone who has read a decent paper on climate change knows that these graphs do not show actual average temperatures but instead show anomalies, i.e. how temperature at any one station has varied from a base period.

As any knowledgeable person knows there is more warming the further north you go. Thus the anomalies for these higher latitude stations are larger than for more southerly stations. Thus removing the higher latitude stations actually results in a lowering of the temperature anomaly graph, not increasing it as the ignorant deniers suggest.

It is time for GoFigure to go since I am bored by his juvenile and comedy routine.

Everyone has had a good laugh so why not do what you said a couple of posts ago. No one will miss your rubbish.

'Then you have the CRU scientists refusing to obey FOI requirements for years--- that’s YEARS, and that should involve slammer time . In fact, Jones was evidently willing to destroy some information if necessary. (ClimateGate emails).'

If you understood the scientific process you would realise that the small number of scientist staff at research organisations are not there to answer a blizzard of FOI requests for data, that as it turns out, McKintyre already had the data he was requesting thus he wasting people time and making a nuisance of himself. This is parr for the course with these types where every trick in the book is worth using to delay any action being taken to slow down climate change. Here I quote at length from:

Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/

<---quote--->
Climate Auditing – Close Encounters with Mr. Steven McIntyre

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data – not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.

I had performed these intermediate calculations in order derive weighted-average temperature changes for different layers of the atmosphere. This is standard practice. It is necessary since model temperature data are available at specific heights in the atmosphere, whereas satellite temperature measurements represent an average over a deep layer of the atmosphere. The weighted averages calculated from the climate model data can be directly compared with actual satellite data. The method used for making such intermediate calculations is not a secret. It is published in several different scientific journals.

Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.

As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.

Mr. McIntyre’s own words do not present a picture of a man engaged in purely dispassionate and objective scientific inquiry:

“But if Santer wants to try this kind of stunt, as I’ve said above, I’ve submitted FOI requests and we’ll see what they turn up. We’ll see what the journal policies require. I’ll also see what DOE and PCDMI administrators have to say. We’ll see if any of Santer’s buddies are obligated to produce the data. We’ll see if Santer ever sent any of the data to his buddies”

(Steven McIntyre; posting on his ClimateAudit blog; Nov. 21, 2008).

My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.

Benjamin D. Santer

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow
San Ramon, California
February 22, 2010*

<---endquote--->

Read learn and inwardly digest.

It is people like you who should be in the slammer for repeating these lies just like those who organised the CRU hack should be.

Two questions

1.To what does, 'hide the decline' refer?

2.What was, 'Mike's nature trick'?

'The website of Joanne Nova has for several years now had an open invitation for credible AGW proponents to debate – the best kind of debate, where each side can study the others’ response and carefully draft their rebuttal, then sit back and wait for the response to that.'

Joanne Nova has made it clear through her own conduct that she is not interested in a fair debate on science that she does not understand:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/joanne_nova_emails_skeptico.php

<---quote--->
Hey, remember Joanne Nova? Well she recently emailed Skeptico:

I recently received an email from Joanne Nova, who writes a blog where she claims global warming isn’t caused by human created greenhouse gas emissions. In her first email to me she wrote “there is no empirical evidence left that supports the theory that man made CO2 makes much difference to the climate.” Note, “no empirical evidence”, not “I disagree with the evidence”, or “there is contrary evidence” – but there is no evidence. None! She emailed me to ask why I had come to a different conclusion from her.
<---endquote--->

For it has become clear that anybody who makes valid points which undermine her assertions, assertions based upon clearly her own ignorance, she ensure they do not appear on her blogg. The reported incidence is legion. It is the same over at WhatsUpWithTony and worse when exposed in this fraud Tony gets belligerent.

And, no, I am not Australian!

'The website of Joanne Nova has for several years ...On the other hand, neither Jones or Mann, or Romm, or Hansen, or any of the better known proponents of AGW even considered volunteering,...'

For they are scientists and not open to a media circus. It takes somebody with both scientific skills and also media savvy to be able to counter the likes of Nova, who will do anything to distract and alter a subject rather than answer a question straight whilst at the same time indulging in a Gish Gallop of denier memes which can be rattled off at speed but which take some time to answer carefully, accurately and in a way that the public can understand and/or won't be twisted and taken out of context. That is where Jones was unfairly treated with that 'no significant warming' nonsense.

Besides, Nova is a scientific nobody and for scientists of the stature of Mann or Hansen to take her on would be to give her more credence than she deserves she will then be equated with them in the publics mind. Besides Mann and Hansen have better things to do.

Sadly we recently lost one of the stalwarts of public debate in Steve Schneider – he is sadly missed.

BTW To say that those who don't agree with the AGW are banned from commenting at RealClimate is a lie. It is just that persistent displays of belligerent ignorance are not tolerated. If somebody makes a point it is generally answered, if they then repeat their countered statement then they are shown the door.

You with your MWP and ClimateGate nonsense and ideological mindset using terms such as 'warmist', 'religion' and 'church of' would soon be shown the door – they are serious scientists over there.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

So, not only does the UN still have its railroad engineer, a truly credible ..... what ?

Then there is this guy, trying to tell the truth....

(Now I'm in political mode, guys - you don't need a technical IQ to understand this)

This should definitely be the guy you donot like. He and McKitrick were unpaid citizens, suspicious of the UN. McIntyre is really persistent. He kept after these guys and finally got a few things he asked for. (It took years.)

.. and he's still at it...

http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/09/the-uk-government-tricks-the-scitech-committee/

(again, this is politics, not science. You guys should enjoy!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/the-new-giss-divergence-problem-ocean-heat-content/

This is a perfect example of how a rational discussion proceeds on this "skeptic" website. It's not unusual at all. This happens to be a very current one.

Note how many of the responses have an understanding of the situation, and are quick to bring up questions, criticisms, and/or conclude that the data isn't particularly helpful for either side.

LEARN something, please!

Yes, GoFigure it is time you learned some science. It is also time you learned that honesty is what drives science not the dishonest rubbish put out by the people you think are "experts". They are both dishonest and are ignorant of science.

Perhaps you can provide me with your evaluation of this:

http://www.climatedepot.com/r/10964/Physicist-the-often-repeated-textbook-report-view-that-the-Earths-surface-temperature-would-be-ndash19C-in-the-absence-of-a-planetary-greenhouse-effect-is-wrong

Yes, GoFigure it is time you learned some science. It is also time you learned that honesty is what drives science not the dishonest rubbish put out by the people you think are "experts". They are both dishonest and are ignorant of science.

Republican factory owners killed your family and friends in the catastrophic blizzards, floods, tornadoes, massive wildfires and other climate change that has been wiping out the bible-belt. This is the Climate Change that their factories created. This is the Climate Change that the Republicans lie about not existing. This is the Climate Change that they program their constituents to deny exists. This is the Climate Change that killed people, destroyed homes, further destroyed the economy that the Republican factories emissions caused so they could make profits by killing those people. Republicans deny Climate Change at all costs in order to keep their factories from having to pay to stop it. The Climate Change that is destroying massive sections of our country can no longer be hidden or denied. The issue of Climate Change is TOTALLY ONLY about Republican factories which cause Climate Change getting charged to put filters on their factories. In the face of a staggering volume of FACTS proving that Climate Change is here, Republicans train their sheep-like followers to deny it always and to never read any of the facts.

It is only necessary for your Church to sacrifice one virgin and all will be well.

Sack cloth and ashes has been successful if this a personal issue that you are finding hard to deal with. You could proxy on behalf of at least 50% of the US population. I'm sure they will thank you.......

Sheeesh. I think it's time to quit this nonsense. Thanks for the insight and memories.......

Titus.

implied by your handle.

whatever. More thrashing around from you in the absence of sound scientifically backed argument because CO2Science is not a source for sound science, quite the opposite as this article points out:

CO2 non-science journalism is not doing the World a favour
http://www.climateshGellbspanifts.org/?p=1043

quote

Remember the last time you tried to reason with someone who constantly took your words out of context in an attempt to argue an opposite futile point? If that left you smiling politely while shaking your head, you probably felt like me after reading the article “Coral Reefs and Climate Change: Unproved Assumptions” by the Idso family posted on their website “CO2 Science” at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The article is another sad addition to their more than 500 un-reviewed pieces – all with the obvious agenda of making their readers believe that climate change science is nothing but alarmist propaganda.

unquote

note that mention of '500 un-reviewed pieces' (that is un-peer-reviewed).

You wrote:

'... and you don't even recognize that your argument is nothing more than an attack on co2science.org.'

Well you put the target on its back. Having written that CO2Science has opened itself up to mockery from association with fossil fuel interests and those corrupted scientists that suck at the teats provided by the merry-go-round of industry supported think tanks and institutes as is well explained in Climate Cover-Up (CCup)– you should read a copy.

quote
Gelbspan (Ross of The Heat is Online) had documented as early as the mid-1990s that scientists including Michaels, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling, and Fred Singer were carting away tens of thousands —sometimes hundreds of thousands—of dollars from sources ranging from the Western Fuels Association to the British Coal Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, OPEC, and the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science. CCup pp106
unquote

Note the Orwelian doublespeak with that lasft mentioned.

It goes on:

quote
He (Ross Gelbspan) told me (author of Ccup) at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Montreal in December 2005 that the public and the politicians already knew that people like Pat Michaels and Sallie Baliunas were no longer credible. Surely, Gelbspan said, it was time to move on—to start talking about solutions.

Not quite. Six months later a sputtering Gelbspan was on the phone, reporting the kind of scoop that he had hoped would no longer be relevant. Someone had leaked him a memo, now posted on DeSmogBlog (see

http://www.desmogblog.com/vampire-memo-reveals-coal-industry-plan-for-massive-propaganda-blitz

and

http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

and in case you cannot read through that the memo is found at:

http://www.desmogblog.com/files/IREA-memo.pdf

, from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association—a cooperative comprising mostly coal-fired electrical generating untilities. The memo reads like a script from the old ICE (Information Council for the Environment—another example of Orwellian doublespeak) campaign.

Michaels seems to be at it again, a recent trouncing by Ben Santer at that Science Committee hearing last year notwithstanding, with his latest involvement in:

Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Frauenfield_2011_Designed_Obsolescence.html

Those passing through here are advised to find a copy of Climate Cover-up and of Naomi Oreskes 'Merchants of Doubt' to judge who are the real dirty players and villains here. Villains yes for they are helping perpetuate crimes against humanity so that a wealthy few can profit further.

Have you no children or grandchildren GF?

Your future, at 75, looks to be rather short. And mine isn't that far behind and given the inoperable heart damage, after a double near death cardiac arrest about 10 years ago, probably shorter than I would like—I have been finding the atmosphere over here in the UK rather difficult to breath in of late because of the smoke laden atmosphere from forest and heathland fires. These due to the unprecedented hot spell in April with Strawberries already being harvested from the fields—in early May FFS.

This fits in with the warming of the land and seas around the UK with many species shifting territory or going locally extinct. Given that island of the UK are breeding grounds for the majority of the individuals of some species of sea bird and that last year only 3 pairs produced chicks due to the lack of sand eels who have themselves move out or died off. Dead seabirds by the thousands washing ashore with empty gullets having starved.

Down in the Antarctic krill numbers are also down by about seventy percent—with dire consequences for some whale and penguin species.

Your blinkered myopia is becoming real annoying now. Wake TF up!

If you spent a little more time reading at reliable stuff and not shooting from the hip the same ol', same ol' mantras it isn't to late to learn something, even for an old codgger like you - don't be a curmudgeon.

I had better not go on as intended as you are probably suffering from brain overload.

I note that you were in engineering, good ol' J79 eh P&W never had one like that.

... and direct those recommendations at the guy staring back....

(As I said earlier, you're in absolute denial, shooting the messenger)
It's pretty easy to pick out a couple of those studies to see if they're valid.)

Your position is not justified by the facts, and the warmists' are, unfortunately, taking along the entire green position with them, which is very unfortunate.

(I have lots of grandchildren, the oldest will finish college next year. I left P&W in 1963 for better things, evidently a bit before your time)

How stupid are you? Do you not think that I have read the material I cite?

As for facts. It is clear you would not recognise a fact in this topic if it bit you in the fundament, or condiments for that matter.

Warmists and green position be blowed. It is the future of those children and grandchildren that is at stake. I wonder what they will think of you when they realise that you are willing to sell out on their future.

Oldest finishing college next year eh! You were a late starter then.

Unlike you, Lionel, my position is not rigid. If, at some point, I become convinced that there is enough evidence to indicate that man is having a significant impact on the planet's temperature (the other stuff - hurricanes, sea levels, etc., is likely to remain pure astrology, no matter what), I will adjust my understanding accordingly. (We may still be better off, given the obvious natural trend to periodically revert to ice age.)

However, for now it continues to look as if it's natural variation. We've had temperatures as high or higher and for more than brief spells, not only during the MWP, but also during several earlier episodes within our current interglacial period. Claiming that our current warming (now stalled since 1998, but I forgot - you deny the existence of satellites) is other than natural variation requires some EVIDENCE, and there is none. In the meantime the null hypothesis must remain valid. (One of the CRU players, Trenberth, actually is now preaching that the null hypothesis should instead be that of the Church of AGW, and that is indeed over the top. )

Because you devote most of your effort to name calling and ranting, (and when not doing that, you're cutting and pasting the same ilk from people with a similar view) you've buried yourself, along with any credibility you may have ever had, in a very deep hole. Good luck climbing out of there!

In the meantime, if any readers are interested in obtaining more background than just political dogma, my google doc (including numerous references) is available at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
(You may need to copy and paste the web address.)

Hey, GoFigure:

At your age you should have already realized that odds are greater to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual than to convince an alarmist Warmer that AGW has an insignificant effect on global climate.

I've seen Warmer blogs that treated comments from Professor Robert Carter (an outspoken AGW skeptic) like they were written by a (fill in the blankety-blank) denier.

Over the years, as time passed, I've tended to make my comments brief with the intent to at least throw out a challenge to a Warmer's irrational and/or erroneous claims. Perhaps I may be able to influence a newby to the AGW issue, and cause him or her to seek out and weigh the merits... without relying on someone else to tell them what to think (that’s how zealots are created). As I grow older I choose to let the Warmers write the long sermons for their devotees.

From the tone of these many comments, I suspect they are mostly from Australians. I learned long ago that Australians not only love to argue their points, but also cling to them with bulldog tenacity. At least this blog’s Warmers prefer to disparage skeptics in a more civilized manner than most others!

GoFigure, unless you are an Australian, I recommend you find more productive ways to live out your remaining years!

Best wishes,

--- Daisym

except I'm not an Aussie, am retired, and probably have no better way to waste my time.

Everyone is entitled to waste their own time but when you waste our time by having to correct all your errors, dishonest statements, cherry picking and other acts of scientific malfeasance then time to call you out.

Stop wasting everyone's time with your dishonesty.

What you don't seem to understand, Ian, is that it is of no consequence to me (obviously not to you) which is true - whether man causes significant warming or not. What is of interest to me is --- which is it?

Those who claim man is, to a significant extent, having an impact on temperature must show some evidence for that.

Now, in other types of debates, there may be some truth to the claim that the best defense is a good offense, but in this case that is not relevant. Name calling, and related chants tend to show that there is no evidence, else (if you're rational) you'd be more than anxious to provide it.

I've taken one more step by merely asking why is the current warming different than the MWP? You respond by attacking 963 studies (that's about 60 more than were there last year), which almost invariably point show the MWP to have been global in nature. Not only rigorous scientific studies,but also anecdotal evidence.

A scientific mind would immediately check out at least some of those studies, and perhaps have at least some questions or vague rebuttals about the studies. You merely shoot the messenger.

The ironic part of all this is that,initially, Al Gore and his sheeple were (also name callers) referring to the doubters as "flat-earthers".

I must admit, you are probably right. It is a waste of time discussing this issue with the likes of you.

"'ve seen Warmer blogs that treated comments from Professor Robert Carter (an outspoken AGW skeptic) like they were written by a (fill in the blankety-blank) denier."

Bob Carter is a denier, not a skeptic & haunts the right wing circuit. He is a member of various right wing organizations & rarely gets anything right. Your problem is?

"From the tone of these many comments, I suspect they are mostly from Australians. I learned long ago that Australians not only love to argue their points, but also cling to them with bulldog tenacity."

Oh a game of sterotypes, what fun! But somehow commenters from Canada, Europe or the US like Titus or Go figure don't change their views after 7 pages of conversation & that's no doubt different in your eyes?

Clearly it is demonstrable that socialists "believe" in man made climate change while people who love freedom do not.

How to solve the dilemma; let each follow their own religion. Let those who are true believers unhook from the grid, wear homespun, eat local berries and roots, burn sheep dung to keep their huts warm etc.

Let those who "deny" the faith use energy at least as profligately as Al Gore, the IPCC and the climate change industry itself. I dont know about all the factories but those jet setting climate conferees make up about half of the GHGs in their jet travel alone, pass the wine and praise the AGW.

This works out well for everyone. The true believers can tighten their belts and eat fewer twigs and berries while the deniers can assume the lifesyle of the president, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry.

Whys don't these true beleivers ever follow their own advice?

People who have intelligence accept AGW as valid more often than people who have low intelligence do.

Since you don't accept it, you're a thicko.

If I don't believe that bullets kill people, even though you do, can I shoot you?

Or does reality not accede to personal beliefs?

You are correct I'm a conservative, as most of America is, and further I deny your faith as most of America does. You are entitled to practice your faith in 'scientism' because we are a nation or religious tolerance.

The global warming faith was popular at one time as were the Moonies. The zealots in the Democrat party were handed their walking papers last November and the Republicans who professed this faith are now denying it with the same gusto that Peter denied Jesus.

This faith ranks dead last in issues before the American people; it ranks right along with water fluoridation as something that needs our attention.

A lot of corporations have leveraged millions in an attempt to garner billions as gate keepers for the right of people to live. Many Americans already tithe at there churchs and will not tithe to Goldman Sachs or GE as well.

If the frustrate you send a check to Goldman Sachs who undoubtedly is the primary source of cash for this web site

Faith is required for things you can't see or know.

AGW is not a faith, it's an observation.

So in your own words what have you "observed" I don't want you to refer to any revealed truth by anyone, I just want to know what you have observed.

What does scientism have to say about the average ocean temp at 3:23 AM on June 14, of the year 1922 at 16 degrees 4 minutes 3 seconds south latitude, 124 degrees 58 minutes 33 seconds west longitude at a depth of 2264 meters Accuracy of .1 degree C will be acceptable. Oh tell me how you derived the data?

If that's too hard tell me what it is today, right now at the same place

You see the molecules to be found there are far more representative of the earths "average" temperature than any to be found at any of the thousands of those silly surface temperature recording stations located primarily in the US and Europe. This is so because there are more than 780 molecules per cc at this location (this location has as much weight as 780 surface stations readings)

How can anyone ignore this missing data and claim to resurrect the earths average temperature for the year 1922?

No faith just give us the data.

"What does scientism have to say about the average ocean temp at 3:23 AM on June 14, of the year 1922 at 16 degrees 4 minutes 3 seconds south latitude, 124 degrees 58 minutes 33 seconds west longitude at a depth of 2264 meters Accuracy of .1 degree C will be acceptable. Oh tell me how you derived the data?"

Are you a climate scientist Gareth? If not, how do you plan on effectively evaluating this data? Have you published any peer reviewed science to back up your denialism?

"How can anyone ignore this missing data and claim to resurrect the earths average temperature for the year 1922?"

What right wing site are you drawing this information from Gareth? Lionel already stated a few comments back that the data is freely available for those that know where to look & those that know what they are doing, are you one of those people? Then there is others like yourself & McIntyre that are interested in delay.

Have you asked your questions to scientists or organizations that specialize in this area? Please print their comments here.

"Many Americans already tithe at there churchs and will not tithe to Goldman Sachs or GE as well. "

Seems they enjoy the tithe for Koch & Exxon as well eh Gareth? Why is it that the further away from city centres the more extremes in AGW denial are experienced? Lack of education? Just saying.

In a nutshell, here’s what the scientific community is telling us about climate change:

1. The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere.

2. Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

3. Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

4. Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

5. The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more

Open letter: “Climate change and the integrity of science” signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences posted by The Guardian on May 6, 2010.

All that said; why are more than half Joe public either not believing it or say it's of no concern?

Dosn't say much for your case. Particularly when you have most politicians, media and communication consultants in your corner.

Think about it.......

Mother Nature doesn't give a Tinker's damn about public opinion in the US.

Totally agree and not just the US.

And more importantly Mother Nature doesn't give a Tinker's damn about AGW. She will do her own thing in her own time no matter what. She can sweep aside anything man can do in seconds. And she will.

No problem for her.....

Sorry, 78% think GW is real and 94% of those think Mankind's actions are the major cause.

The 22% remaining are 10x louder, but volume should not be confused with numbers.

Why do you think there are so many repeated names in denial? Because they are so very few.

Arguing from authority will get you nowhere. I could as easily refer to the scientists who signed the petition sent to the UN, or the 32,000 signatures on an earlier petition.

The sea level has been increasing for some 16,000 years - since the end of the last ice age, at a much faster rate in the past but any credible graph shows the level has flattened out thousands of years ago , and recent measurements show the rate of increase is continuing to decrease. In fact, the change from year-to-year is so small that it's practically impossible to detect it.

Scientists don't understand the feedback system well enough to know whether warming will increase or shut itself down naturally. Warming results in cloud cover, hence rain, and increased albedo. Svensmark shows cloud cover as a predictor of climate rather than vice versa.

"Making the oceans more acidic" is a nonstarter. The oceans are not anywhere close to acidic (a ph of 7.0 separates acidic from alkaline, and oceans are way above 7.0. Less alline would have been a more appropriate term.

We have some data on CO2. It has been higher during ice ages. and going into one ice age. Where is the evidence that it will this time be different? CO2 is also increasing at 2ppmv per year. (and that increase continued during the cooling period 1940 to 1975. Historic records show no indication that CO2 has anything to do with the planet's temperature. (Actually, the temperature seems to dictate the CO2 level, at least in paleo studies.)

The oceans are so far not rising. There is no hot spot in the troposphere (predicted by all those computer models).

Check with your local plant growers (or scientists involved in experiments with CO2). The plants love it, and there is a feedback - more CO2.

At 2ppmv per year of CO2 we have plenty of time to figure out what is going on. The real catastrophe would be permitting politicians to use the AGW claim as a basis for implementing dubious policies.

Please document the sources of your assertions.

Hey, Badgersouth:

You want opponents to document their assertions? You KNOW your playing a game.

It's a game because, for you, there is no source of contradictory knowledge or fact that is acceptable to you. You read somewhere that such information has all been debunked, disproven, cherry picked, or outdated.

The documentation is, indeed, out there. If I were to write a book full of documented sources, you would summarily dismiss it with a single sentence. I've seen it done by a great many Warmers. It's easy, fast, and (generally) requires only that the Warmer isn't brain dead.

Stop playing games. There's got to be more to you than that!

-- Daisym

Pages