Rush Limbaugh and Global Warming: the right wing radio attack on Al Gore

Anyone who's ever surfed the AM radio airwaves has doubtless stumbled upon Rush Limbaugh, who is arguably the most well-known right wing talk show host out there.

Over the years, he has been a convenient megaphone for the climate change denier crowd. He has interviewed them, reinforced their rhetoric, been suckered by fake research, and even given his own interpretation of the facts (polar bears stranded on ice floes are “just playing”).

Predictably, one of his latest targets has been Al Gore.

Last year, Limbaugh got out the popcorn, switched on the TV, and took notes on “Live Earth” for his audience, claiming that it was “an absolute disaster”, and gloated that “[c]old weather and snow the week before kept people away from [the event in] Johannesburg,”. Now, Limbaugh is repeating his “Live Earth was a failure” meme.

The proof (according to Limbaugh) is Al Gore's new bipartisan ad campaign to promote awareness of global warming awareness and action we can take. Here's what Limbaugh has to say.

He hits all the classic climate change skeptic talking points, and then some:

How much publicity has Al Gore gotten on his global warming movement? He's gotten more publicity than he could buy. He's got that movie of his, which, of course, played, and it got an Academy Award, which called more attention to it, and it was in movies. In south Florida and in other parts of the country, schoolchildren were being forced to watch his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Now, apparently, the American people are either too dumb to get his message on global warming from his award-winning science fiction thriller, An Inconvenient Truth, so now he's gotta go out and spend an additional $300 million to try to propagandize them.”

The sole purpose of this campaign of manmade global warming is to convince more and more Americans and citizens of the world to turn over more and more of their liberty to Big Government and to allow Big Government to have more and more control over private sector businesses. It's nothing more than a disguised government expansion program, typical liberalism.”

Everybody wants to matter; everybody wants their life to have meaning. So if they can be fooled into thinking that they are going to pay for their carbon footprint, that that will help clean up the planet and prevent this destructive climate change, they'll be more than happy to do it. Meanwhile, the people who they're paying will be laughing all the way to the bank because it's just one of the biggest scams to come down the pike. The one thing about this that to me is encouraging is that Gore's movie didn't do its job and all the free publicity and all the propaganda did not do its job, otherwise there would be no need for this $300 million campaign.[Bold emphasis mine.]

A note to Limbaugh: you may persist in hoisting the bullhorn of blather, but you're in a shrinking echo chamber. The traditional media is finally recognizing the skeptics for what they are. And, there are folks on your side of the political fence who are teaming up with Al Gore to act on climate change.

Before long, you'll be talking to yourself, Rush.

Editor's Note: this is the first post of our newest DeSmog writer, Page van der Linden. Welcome to the team Page!


OK, I get that you don’t like Rush. I find him a bit annoying as well.
But can you point out what exactly he said that was not true?
And back it up?
Like it or not, The AGW thing crumbling away faster every day.
Soon it will just be a very embarrasing memory.
Too bad to. Cause a little warming would have been nice.

Course I have been hearing this “crumbling away” business for the past 15 years since global warming has been a concern. Anything in science can be wrong, its why its a self correcting. Have to wonder though, if its been crumbling for the last 15 years why are the well respected scientific academies in every major industrial countery, and countless other scientific organizations all supporting the notion that human derived emissions of greenhouse gases have been increasing the global temperature, to paraphrase badly. If things are so crumbling, why are these great scientific instuitions and bodies not saying this is the case? Just because I like posting this list

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation

Why aren’t any of the above listed oganizations refuting AGW? Hard to tell for sure, but one would have to serious question politics. All those organizations are political bodies. And there are some very respected scientists who disagree. But science isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about whether or not a given hypothesis can be substantiated completely by the data. More and more data is becoming available that seriously questions AGW. Even the data present only conforms loosely to AGW after some major arbitrary assumptions and manipulations. AGW is more based on faith that man is causing the change observed that in a theory that relies on solid data and independently repeatable experiments that show this to be the case.

None, these all support the IPCC statement. There are no scientific bodies that dispute the main conclusion, though 2 are neutral in their overall statements. None of these organizations are political bodies, they have no political party affiliations, they are not governmental, and not privately funded by industry. They are collections of scientists. If you want a list of organizations refuting the human contribution to climate change, then look under business and industry funded political think tanks.

All of these academies and bodies have come out in support of a many scientific topics, stating their reputations and credibility on them like evolution, round earth and gravity. Do you know what a national academy of science is? Thus if you follow that train of thought, since science isn’t a popularity content and these major organizations have so much to lose by endorsing “a hypothesis” why on earth would they do it?

Right….scientific bodies made of scientists, who’s histories and reputations rest on good scientific judgment, pass out endorsements based on faith….sure, and Ball actually conducts research.

Nice try, though, it was quite amusing

Man is inherently a political animal. Where ever you have organizations of humans, you have politics. This is true in political parties, governments, companies, universities, cub scout packs, little league baseball teams, knitting clubs, and yes scientific societies. Politics is practiced on a wide scale by humans in all these organizations to gain power, authority, and/or influence. The statements released reflect the agendas and opinions of a select few members of the society who have successuflly gained authority, power, and influence. This may or may not also be congruent with the majority opinion of members of that society. And several of these societies do recieve significant funds from private industry and/or government entities, the American Meteorlogical Society being a prime example.

Reputations are just as much at risk by scientists who work for the think tanks you so disdain just as much as scientists who are members of scientific societies. There is nothing inherently different from the human norm in scientists that would exempt them from risking reputations to further political agendas. Just because a person is a scientist doesn’t make someone more altruistic or truthfull than the average person.

Science is not a popularity contest. However scientists are still humans and are still vunerable to the need humans have to crave popularity and acclaim from their fellow humans. Just as all policemen aren’t totally law abiding, nor do all clergy practice what they preach. Not all accountants follow the generally accepted accounting practices, and not all media adhere to the journalistic code of ethics.

And the statements that I’ve seen, appear to leave plenty of wiggle room if anthropogenic global warming is shown to be a total farse in the near future. Just like our elected government officials, scientists know how to use spin to CYA when they’re proven wrong. No statement is saying that all members of the society are betting their entire professional credibility on AGW not being proven wrong. Far from it, most statements list tons of caveats like uncertainties in predicting climate, not knowing exactly how natural phenomenen will affect future climate, etc. These statements are little more that jumping on the political correct theory de juer while leaving lots of ambiguity to CYA incase this theory becomes politically incorrect.

I disagree as a person who practices science to gain fame the only fame one can get is the standing in the scientific community. In a scientific sense this comes from the number of publications and the degree of impact they do have, i.e. ground breaking research. PR people are PR people, their fame comes not from practicing science but from overall public adoration and perception, I think there is a big contrast in those types of fame. In the public context being a famous scientist takes exceptional work, having high standing in the scientific community or fame if you will comes from many years of publishing results, ground breaking ideas, and significant impact within their own community. Is Dr. Tim Ball famous in the public sphere or the scientific community?

As a person who practices science, I don’t agree that politics have any influence in good research. You study X, report on X. The implications of said research can lead to political issues however. Scientific understanding of climate, endorsed by all but 2 scientific bodies, as reported by the IPCC, is that humans are influencing climate by, landscape modification, greenhouse gas emissions etc. That isn’t political, doing something about it is. The understanding climate on its own is not a political enterprise, it’s not political that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, nor is understanding how it acts as a greenhouse gas, nor is methane political in how its role trapping heat works.

Rest assured I trust scientists living off of public grants, supported by universities and other public research intuitions a lot more than those funded by business interests or political think tanks. American and world wide researchers mostly from public intuitions showed that smoking and second hand smoke caused a number of health risks. Since that time there has been a concerted effort from business and political think tanks to conduct their own versions of science, misreport science to change the public perception of what the overall scientific consensus is on an issue in order to shape public action on a specific issue due to their own vested interests. Scientists who do work for those groups, are employed simply for one reason, for the good of the company. If you talk of bias in science, it comes from political think tanks and business interests, not from researchers, running their projects off their puny public grants and grad students living on 15k a year stipends.

Deniers for hire is a good way to make a living, just ask Dr. Singer who led one of the “scientific fights” to show no link between second hand smoke and cancer, or again how Dr. Singer leads in denying global warming ……..I’d say he is a famous person, has no scientific credibility but still captures media time, speaking fees and significant grants from business interests that love the things he says. Sadly though id say his standing in the scientific community for his great works on understanding climate is rather lacking.

Hey if you think groups like the Royal society or the National Academies only support something because its politically correct and the de jeur thing of the day, then go ahead….I am not going to be able to change your mind on how significant their endorsement is.

Carl, I respect you beliefs and faith as I do everyone elses. But I see no empirical evidence in you argument as to why scientists who don’t directly work for private industry and scientific society are exempt from human politics. They still have the human need and greed for money and public recognition. I’ve seen no research that all these people have an altruistic scientist gene in their DNA. Yes you belive and have faith and maybe you are one of the rare individuals who has very little influence from those factors.

I would ask you if you are so apolitical and tied to good scientific work, why then are you reduced to ad hominem attacks on Dr. Singer? Dr. Singer puts for scientific arguments not ad hominem ones. Why do the socalled scientist stoop to politics to critize their critics instead of answer with a better scientific argument? This alone seems ample proof to me that scientist are similarly affected by politics as political parties and corporate leaders.

Scientists have to be honest. If they lie about their results they will sooner or later be exposed as liars. Once they lose their credibility, they cannot practice as scientists in any effective way, because no one will believe their results.

The main reason for becoming a scientist is to learn about something and to figure out how it works. Scientists do not go to their labs expecting to prove that global warming is happening; they go expecting to figure out how a specific gas or liquid or organism works; why a certain kind of cloud behaves a certain way and not in a different way; or what causes a red blood cell to contract and what prevents it from doing so; or why some squirrels are more successful in life than others. Once they figure out how it works, then they think about how it fits into the larger picture; or if it doesn’t seem to fit, why not.

The point is that science has to be based on the physical evidence, not on anyone’s political or religious beliefs. If you don’t understand this basic thing, you do not understand science.

Scientists are proven wrong all the time. Einstein was no exception. Infact it was his theory of relativity that was the exception. Einstein was wrong on many other theories. So it’s perfectly acceptable for a scientist to be wrong.

Now as to lying, that’s another story. If a scientist came right out and and admitted that he’d lied extensively in his research, then he might face the end of his career. But political spin can change a lie to a mistake. Whose to know the difference? It is extremely rare for anyone to out and out lie in corporate America. Mostly it’s just shading the truth in a certain direction. And that’s more likely what you’ll find in the scientific community.

As for becoming a scientist, everyone has their own reasons. Some that they freely admit and others that they may not even to themselves. But from the ones I’ve know personally, and that’s quite a few, they had lots more reasons than to learn about something and figure out how it works. Most successful ones have fairly large egos, like successfully people in all walks of life.

And the argument is over whether human scientists are exempt from basic human foibles or not. The argument is not whether science is based on those same foibles, because it isn’t. Or to put it another way, it’s arguing whether clergy practice their religion fully or occasionally fail to do so because of their inherent human foibles. The Bible doesn’t say thou shalt commit adultery, but how many Christian preachers have been caught doing just that.

Scientists are human. I don’t see any empirical evidence to suggest that they are exempt to human weaknesses. I think that scientist can be just as flawed as the next man in their opinions. So the concentration should be on the empirical data and not the credibility of the scientists. We shouldn’t give scientist the special status of ancient man’s high priest to a pagan god. What the high priest says must be true because he’d never lie. If he was caught in a lie then he’d be killed by the masses. Yet it never seemed to stop the high priests from lying and manipulating people politically. Science is supposed to provide methods for us to independently assure that what the scientists are saying is true without having to just rely on them. Repeatable and predictible observations should show us the truth, not any consensus of scientists.

How exactly do you imagine scientists reached the consensus that AGW is occuring if not by repeatable and predictable observations?

1. I don’t know that there is a consensus amongl all scientists. I have seen no strong evidence to suggest that there is.

2. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of stories about how scientists came to believe in global warming.

3. I have yet to see any evidence of repeatable and predictible observations to support AGW. There are lots of reports, papers etc. that lend evidence to support AGW. I’m not aware of any formula or model that has repeatably predicted the changes in climate in the future. Instead, I see the formula and models either have a huge +/- degree of accuracy or they post event attribut the results not matching to some variable that is not independently measurable.

I have faith in lots of things, but scientists always being right, even when in alleged consensus, isn’t one of them. All I see is lots of data in the past which has been forced to match the theory using a lot of arbitrary assumptions. But the formula which matchs past data to AGW can’t do so anywhere near as accurately in the future. Without the ability to accurate predict the future, it’s a nice area to keep studying; but hardly worth betting the economy on.

Read the IPCC. When you say things like “I have yet to see any evidence…” you are simply demonstrating that you have not read much. Read Spencer Weart’s online history. Read all the articles at Realclimate.

Ignorance is not a good basis for honest scepticism.

I think you have boiled it down to a short definition of a Skeptic.

I try to follow the statements put forth by the skeptical scientists and found that they reference data that is understandable and logical. The alarmists in my mind have faied to falsifie the Skeptical Scientists data and instead launch personal attacks on the Scientist, ususally by claiming he is on some industry payroll as if the alarmist Scientists don’t get paid for by Governments in the form of Grants to do further research as long as it matches the Governments’ agenda.

It seems to me that the Alarmists spout the same message over and over thinking that if it is repeated often enough it becomes factual.

It’s a mystery to me that the IPCC does not recognize the role of the Sun in driving the climate.

lrbinfrico said: “And there are some very respected scientists who disagree”.

Please tell us who you are referring to and cite some of their papers which they have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. I bet it will be a very short list, if in fact you can even name one who has not been proven wrong.

Ian Forrester


your questions appear to relect a serious flaw in logic. There don’t have to be published papers on alternative theories to AGW in a peer reviewed scienific publications to show that there is not sufficient evidence to support the theory of AGW. All I said was there there were some well respected scientists that disagree that there there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that AGW is correct. There are various theories that the sun might be causing most of the warming that we’ve seen in the last century. But there are no papers that conclusively prove nor disprove this. There is both evidence for and against this theory. Likewise there is evidence both for and against AGW. But we don’t understand enough about the climate to conslusively prove nor disprove this theory.

And as for listing a couple of scientists off the top of my head, John R Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama Huntsville.

lrbinfrisco said: “And as for listing a couple of scientists off the top of my head, John R Christy and Roy Spencer.”

In case you don’t know it these two “scientists” have lost all credibility they might have once had.

And as for your statement “There don’t have to be published papers on alternative theories to AGW in a peer reviewed scienific (sic) publications to show that there is not sufficient evidence to support the theory of AGW”.

You don’t seem to understand how science works. Results get published in respected “peer reviewed” journals so that they can be discussed by other experts who will analyze the data and results. If there are no disagreements then the science is accepted and can be freely quot4ed as to being accurate and correct.

There is no evidence that disagrees with the thesis that the major portion of the current (last 150 years or so) global warming is being caused by anthropogenic influences.

As for the sun that has long been disproved as a contributor to global warming over the past 50 years.

See this link for the most up to date results on this.

Also for more information Google the scientists involved.

Ian Forrester

Gee Ian. Michael Mann is probably the most discredited scientist in the industry, and you guys still listen to him.
Al Gore has been legally discredited by the British courts and you still listen to him.
James Hanses has be publically discredited and you still listen to him.

Bottom Line: Desmog is a Smear site. It exists mainly to smear respected scientists in a lame attempt to render their opinions mute.

There is little point in even discussing credibility on this blog.

You are right for once, there is no point in discussing the science of AGW with some one as ignorant and biased as you. Just what sort of a life do you have that you do not feel responsible for your actions and how they could adversely affect millions of lives?

You are not worth chatting with. Go find a blog that deals in the useless slime that you seem to want to discuss.

Ian Forrester

Touched a nerve I see.
truth sting a bit there Ian?

You truly do not have a clue. How do you manage to get to work every morning, does someone leave large arrows on the street to guide you.

You are just ignorant of anything to do with science.

Ian Forrester

Just the tip(!) of the ice-berg:

“…what an ignorant person you are.”

“… lying, ignorant and offensive people like you.”

“These ignorant trolls …”

“… how ignorant the AGW deniers are.”

“… you are even more ignorant than I thought.”

“… ignorant trolls like you …”

“… an ignorant coward.”

“You are one ignorant and disgusting person.”

“… such an ignorant troll …”

“… stupid, ignorant and demeaning …”

“… many equally ignorant people …”

“… how ignorant you are …”

“… you are pathetic and ignorant of science too.”

“… You are either lying or are very ignorant of the science.”

“… how ignorant of the whole area you are …”

“… that ignorant Senator …”

“… unintelligent and ignorant …”

etc., etc. …

Well you are ignorant, I mean you cant accept that greenhouse gases act like greenhouse gases. That a significant increase is CO2 is caused by human activities and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its pretty basic stuff. If thats not ignorance I am not sure what is

Rob, there is help for people who are ignorant. The process is called “learning”. You should try it.

If you read the actual court judgment, rather than the denier press coverage of same, you would see that the UK judge endorsed Gore’s film as credible, fair and worthy of presentation to UK school children.

Which is to say that the people who launched the suit trying to get The Inconvenient Truth thrown out of British schools LOST THE CASE.

That’s no smear - though it is periodic pleasure to “smear” the sort of disingenuous scoundrels who who so consistently misrepresent this kind of information. It is, instead, a fair and documented fact. You might even call it “the truth” - however inconvenient you find it.

Ian, you asked for examples from me for the respected scientists I sited who disagree with that the IPCC AGW theory has sufficient scientific evidence to base drastic governmental policy on it, and I gave you examples. You reply with dismissing the credibility of my examples without siting why. Can you show examples of why you don’t consider them credible scientists? What is your objective criteria to be considered a credible scientist?

Ian you wrote: “You don’t seem to understand how science works. Results get published in respected “peer reviewed” journals so that they can be discussed by other experts who will analyze the data and results. If there are no disagreements then the science is accepted and can be freely quot4ed as to being accurate and correct.”

I don’t think that you are understanding what I’m saying. If a scientist does research, writes a paper, and has it reviewed by a small subset of his peers, and then has it published in a respected scientific publication; another scientist doesn’t have to write a paper to criticize the 1st scientist’s research. The the experients were flawed or the data was flawed or even if the conclusion’s scientific logis was flawed, a peer scientists would have amble ground to disagree with the findings without publishing a paper of his own just to show his disagreement.

Ian wrote: “There is no evidence that disagrees with the thesis that the major portion of the current (last 150 years or so) global warming is being caused by anthropogenic influences.”

Actually there is evidence that would put this into question. The inablility to accurrately repeat the results in future experiments is the single largest and most important IMO. We cannot predict future climate even given measurements of all the known and measurable major factors. Certainly reasons are given post fact as to why we didn’t see the expected results. But the very fact that we aren’t seeing the expected results, is proof. A 2nd proof is that we don’t have measurements of all the major factors. Cloud cover and composition, deep ocen temperature, and others are lacking. There are major portions of the climate that we simply don’t have a very firm understanding of.

And I have not seen any proof to show that there is no way that the sun is causing a large portion of the warming that we have seen. Now I have seen research that casts doubt on certain theories of the sun influencing a major portion of the warming observed. I would certainly agree that there it can be proven with a high degree of certainty that the sun is causing the major portion of the warming that we have seen. Like AGW, I don’t think that we have the understanding of how the climate works to definitively say that the majority of the warming is caused by any single factor.

The above post is almost completely undecipherable. Please take the time to write in correct English otherwise your comments are meaningless.

Why are all of you deniers so lacking in basic writing and comprehension skills?

How long did you spend in school? Obviously not long enough. You may scoff at me but your gross mistakes are an insult to anyone who you expect to read your work.

Ian Forrester

Ian, I am more than a little disappointed that you resort to ad hominem attacks for your response. This is a tactic that I see used far too often by all sides of this argument. I had judged you to be a better person than to attempt to sidetrack intelligent debate with an unprovoked personal attack.
I will rephrase my response using more simplistic language in the hope that you might be able to comprehend it. I will also run the reply through a grammar and spelling program in an attempt to assuage you apparent inability to see past minor errors in the writings of others. However, I cannot be so presumptuous to claim that this response or any future response will be grammatically error free, nor can I promise that you will find them perfectly comprehensible. In the future if there are parts of one of my responses that you cannot comprehend, I would ask in the interests of promoting civil discourse on the topic of AGW that you confine your responses to peaceable requests for restatement or further explanation.
I had asked you for evidence to support your assertion that they were completely lacking in scientific credibility. This is a very bold and potentially libelous accusation of two highly educated researchers with prominent positions in academia and government. It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask for evidence to back your position.
The next part of my response was in reply to you following statement. “You don’t seem to understand how science works. Results get published in respected “peer reviewed” journals so that they can be discussed by other experts who will analyze the data and results. If there are no disagreements then the science is accepted and can be freely quot4ed as to being accurate and correct.”
I agree that the Scientific Method is based upon publicizing scientific research in order to have it reviewed and critiqued by the researchers’ peers. In contemporary scientific practice, using journals to publicize research is by far the most prevalent method of accomplishing the goal of peer review. However, it is not the only accepted method. Additionally, simple publication in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that the research is accepted as absolute truth. The goal of the publication is to invite criticism of the research in hopes poking holes in it. At no time in the future is it too late to offer criticism. Also, it is not necessary to create a formal research paper and have it published in order for criticism to conform to the Scientific Method.
A good example of this type of behavior can be found in the field of software engineering. Best practices in software engineering call for a peer review of all artifacts of a software project. A programmer need not write a replacement program in order to offer criticism of a peer’s program. Additionally, a person does not need a formal education in programming in order to point out a logical or syntactical flaw in a peer’s work. Either a program is correct or it is not. Likewise either research and the conclusions derived from said research follow the Scientific Method or they don’t. It is not necessary to reproduce an error free similar research product to correctly point out a flaw in someone else’s research.
Ian, you wrote the following assertion. “There is no evidence that disagrees with the thesis that the major portion of the current (last 150 years or so) global warming is being caused by anthropogenic influences.”
The apparent inability of scientists to accurately predict near term climatic changes is ample evidence current scientific understanding of the forces causing climate change is not sufficient to say definitively what has caused observed warming in the last 150 years. Current AGW theory is dependent on several arbitrary assumptions that have been programmed into computer models to make past observations conform to the theory. Chief among these assumptions is the concept that CO2 forces positive feedbacks in the climate that greatly amplify the effects of the CO2 in warming the climate. Resent satellite date on cloud formations calls this positive feedback mechanism into question. This and other evidence collectively do not absolutely eliminate the possibility of AGW. Neither does that AGW absolutely eliminate the possibility of natural forces being responsible for recent warming. Because science has not been able to accurately predict climate changes because of inadequate understanding of all climatic forces and how they interact together, we can’t be certain or even reasonably assured what are the major driving factors in recent global climate change.

LRB, why had you judged Ian to be a “better person”? If you had been around here for awhile you’d be well aware that he is a grunting, snuffling knuckle dragger. Any respectable blog would have banned him long ago but, on DesmogBlog he fits right in.

Heretofore, Ian has confined his communications with me to civil debate. I sincerely hope that he returns to this form of communication. The internet makes it far to easy to resort to juvenile name calling and personal attacks. The subject of AGW especially seems to draw this behavior from those who participate in discussing it. I can’t say that I’m always perfect in this aspect in my postings on the internet either. However, I would hope that all of us would make an effort to bring more mature and respectful language and to our responses.

Firstly, most deniers are very loose with the English language which is, to be honest, an insult to their readers. It shows a lack of respect and critical thinking. If you want me to read your responses then please take the time and care to ensure that they are not filled with grammatical and spelling errors. You will be taken far more seriously if you do.

Secondly, if you appear to support the likes of ZOG, Troll, Rob, johnnyb and other trolls who have nothing useful to say, then you will be treated in the same manner as I treat these despicable people. They are not interested in finding out and understanding what is going on in climate science (or any other science for that matter, they are anti-science idiots) then you will be lumped in with them.

Thirdly, for all I know since you use some ridiculous name you may be one of them using a sock puppet.

Fourthy, you keep repeating the nonsense about all “the respected scientists” who are opposed to AGW. There are NO RESPECTED SCIENTISTS who oppose AGW. The majority have been shown to be either mistaken (Lindzen’s iris theory) or are out and out liars. I’m sure you know who I am referring to since you continually bring up their names when it has been shown again and again that their honesty is suspect. This proves that you are either completely ignorant of what is going on with the science of AGW or you are lying too. I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Ian Forrester

Ian, your response above exemplifies some of the worst behaviors that I’ve encountered in posters to blogs regarding AGW. I am disappointed that you chosen to respond in such a rude and immature manner in lieu of engaging in rational debate.

If AGW does prove to be true and any of the catastrophic predictions come about, you can look primarily in the mirror when assessing blame. It will be you and those like you who seem to care more for stroking their own ego than in taking the time civilly discuss the issue.

You appear to be more a pompous popinjay concerned primarily in lording your supposed intellectual superiority as evidenced in believing in AGW. And yet you make the most basic and foolish mistakes in your postings. Case in point, would be you incredible display of hypocrisy in your post above. You spend the entire first paragraph ranting about your anal retentive need for others to post grammatical and orthographically correct postings so as not to insult your personal sensibilities. And yet you begin your fourth paragraph with the word “Fourthy” which has no meaning in the English language. Any spell checker program would have caught this error. It is rude beyond believe to so arrogantly demand such a lofty standard of others, but not even to make the most minimal efforts to achieve that standard yourself.

The issue of AGW has been politicized and polarized by behavior similar to yours. Sadly this has become especially prevalent in the public communications by the leaders of the AGW movement. Ad hominem attacks appear to have replaced rational arguments as the first line of defense in responding to scientific skepticism. Not that there is not improvement that could be made on the side of those who are skeptical of AGW. The sentiment that those on the other side are complete idiots unless they agree with my beliefs is all too prevalent. Basic respect and social courtesies need to be extended to the other side if we hope to reach a resolution to this issue and not create a costly boondoggle that will not benefit society at all.

And just for your information, my so called “ridiculous” name is simply the first part of my email address at Google which is made up of my initials combined with the city I live in. Maybe if you were not so set on throwing verbal stones, you could have taken the time and asked for an explanation.

Should you reconsider and wish to rationally discuss the issue of AGW, I would welcome doing so with you. But until that time, I do not feel that further debate on an emotional level will be productive of any positive outcomes.

Intelligent people get annoyed with those who insist on retaining their invincible ignorance. Ian’s frustration is perfectly understandable, especially considering the piggish behaviour of Zog and the other trolls here.

It is neither intelligent nor mature to respond with abject rudeness to someone who has done nothing to provoke such an attack. Though my neighbor might kick my dog and give me a rational reason to become angry, it is totally illogical for me to take that anger out on you. A mature person accepts responsibility for their actions and apologizes when they make mistakes.

You have done something to provoke an attack. You make ignorant statements and you refuse to learn to be less ignorant.

Essentially what you’re saying is that I am ignorant because I don’t believe as you do and that I refuse to change my beliefs to conform to yours. That is an example of intolerance. This is certainly indicative of uncivilized behavior. Even if you find another person’s beliefs to be totally absurd, that is no excuse to resort to rude and immature behavior. Even if you are right, you still appear to be a total ass; and if you are proven wrong, you look even worse.

You have shown that you know nothing about the science of climate change but you boast about how all the scientists have got it wrong. What gives you the right to be so arrogant. No wonder I treat you with utter contempt, that is all you deserve. You are definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution as you so erroneously think.

You are nothing but an arrogant and ignorant anti-science fool who is backing the large companies who are on a course to make the lives of many millions of people unbearable. Does that make you feel proud?

Go back to the rock you crawled out from under. You have shown that you are no better than the other trolls who infect this blog and add nothing but confusion and nonsense to the discussion of global warming.

I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to your foolishness and nonsense. I’m sure others will feel the same.

Ian Forrester

“All I said was there there were some well respected scientists that disagree that there there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that AGW is correct.”

Bully for them. Let them pursue their theories and share them with the world, and I do hope they are proven right. In the meantime, what is really at issue is the _probability_ that AGW is occuring, given the evident magnitude of the impacts were it actually so. This is basic risk management. Now please step aside so we can take some action.

The magnitude of global cooling is far more severe than that of AGW. And the true probability of each occurring is about the same, unknown. We just don’t have the understanding of the climate to accurately predict the probability of either within the next century. The prudent thing to do is keep studying and refining our knowledge, but not to take any drastic action either way.

What evidence do you have for this statement: “The magnitude of global cooling is far more severe than that of AGW.”

What evidence do I have. Well I’m pulling from most of the scientific reports that I’ve seen on the ice ages, including even the little ice age though not nearly as severe here. Much harder to grow crops and more costly for man to adapt. The historical record shows that at one time England had vineyards and Greenland was good for growing crops. Even with all the warming we’ve seen so far that isn’t happening.

Do you also write as JohhnyB? You guys are still stuck in the old debunked arguments.

(1) England STILL HAS VINEYARDS (and I have seen palm trees growing in a place called Plockton in the highlands of Scotland – want to see my holiday snaps?).

(2) There are still arable areas in Greenland – do a little checking on this before exposing yourself as someone who believes everything s/he reads.

Fern Mackenzie

Never heard of Johnny B. And I should have written wide spread growing of vineyards in England.

I have yet to see any substantial argument that we’d be better off with a new ice age than with AGW as predicted by the IPCC.

You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. There is no evidence for arable crops in Greenland when the Vikings inhabited it. They had livestock which they fed poor quality forage including sea grasses and sea weed. They did not grow crops as you seem to think.

Check out the evidence found in the middens from their settlements. They probably grew some kale and other similar vegetables in small plots but no arable farming as you are claiming.

Ian Forrester

I cannot prove definitively that large arable farming. Neither can you definitively prove that the Viking settlers were not able to grow sufficient crops to be self substaining. What I contend is that there is evidence in the historical record to support the assertion that climate was substantially warmer that the contemporary climate. The complete comprehensive evidential record is not without conflict and certainly not conclusive on either side of the argument. However, personally I give greater credibility to the historical record of widespread warming not only in Greenland but throughout Europe as well. I wouldn’t bet my house on it, but would consider a lesser amount.

The Greenland settlement flourished for a couple of centuries but Knuckledragger wants to believe that it was some sort of subsistence operation because that fits into his pea-sized brain. People struggling to survive don’t build sustantial stone buildings or maintain regular communications and trade with older settlements.

The Greenlanders probably had no wheat but they sure as hell grew rye and barley

ZOG said: “but they sure as hell grew rye and barley.”

Provide unequivocal proof and I will accept your premise. Otherwise you are only dealing in fairy tales.

Ian Forrester

I tried to post a list of links like yours here once.
It was links to many of thousands of scientists that disagree.
It was blocked.
Agenda perhaps?

Mindlessly throwing out lots of links is spam.

And blocking spam isn’t censorship.

(By the way, I’m sure your big long “list” of links comes from only a few select places.)

Frank Bi,
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce