What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]

Heidi Cullen, climate expert and correspondent for The Weather Channel and formerly a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado explains why scientists are so sure that our burning of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels is causing a disruption in the earth's climate systems.

The video is part of recently launched climate change science communications project called Climate Central.


But yes, certain beliefs are at odds with science and I consider that to be a valid filter when deciding who I will take seriously on empirical matters. It happens that I am an atheist. I don’t classify faith in others as a mass delusion, as does Richard Dawkins, but it is something that affects one’s approach in a broader sense. I don’t really feel I need to “defend this one,” Gary. It’s pretty basic. As I said, I won’t lose any sleep.

Fern Mackenzie

You are correct on one count. You won’t change my mind with this load of cult agenda drivel.
However I am well able to distinguish Religious fanatical dogma when I see it and Hiedi is the absolute epitome of agenda driven eco nutbars.

She outdoes James Hansen and his 20 meter sea level rise fable.

Desmog exists to discredit and defame honest scientists that disagree with the religions dogma of AGW.
They smear anyone and everyone that has an opposing point of view even though skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
I believe I have adequately illustrated the brazen hypocrisy of the local cult with this thread.
The sorrowful complaint that I would have the nerve to question the credentials of Poor little Attractive Well educated Hiedi is I think telling enough.

For anyone that really values science and truth, look back over the above thread and judge for yourselves.
Does this not seem completely hypocritical?
Can you see the religious fervor?
I was called a lier, a fool, uneducated, and was ridiculed simply because I presented (quite clear and obvious) counter opinions.

Anyone find it interesting?

Read, learn and don’t accept the word of people with somthing to protect.

A quick read of your posts on this and other threads and it is easily seen that you are “a lier (sic), a fool, uneducated, and was ridiculed” exactly because you are a liar, a fool and uneducated. You are ridiculed because you do not have a clue as to what AGW is all about. You do not read real science papers, you do not cite sources but just waste our time by having to point out your hypocrisy.

Ian Forrester

Have you actually been ordained in the cult now?
You seem to be just another brain washed completely faithful unquestioning zombie.
Where is the intellegent Ian that used to post here.
You are now so completely taken in by the scam you can’t even see the incredibly ovbious any more.
Too much cool aid?
Read Ian. You to can be deprogrammed.
Although it will take longer for you and VJ.

Gary you know nothing about science, the scientific method or scientists. Why do you profess to know so much about climate science based on these observations?

You have got things completely backwards, the AGW deniers are the ones who have been taken in by the scam of AGW denying. Science is based on reproducibly obtained facts and data. You people can produce no data that supports your position at all and yet you call the scientists and those who understand the science of AGW “cultists.”

Please consult a dictionary and find out what a cult is, you will find that it includes AGW deniers, intelligent design proponents, creationists, HIV/AIDS deniers etc.

The more you post your junk the more you expose those whom you support as cranks and idiots.

Ian Forrester

Since AGW and intelligent design are so very similar in nature.
Both begin with the conclusion and cherry pick the supporting facts.
Both defend the doctrine with religeous fervor.
Both consider any descent to be heracy and utterly idiodic.
Both are absolutely closed minded.

Freudian slip?

.. to lurk around here spreading this rubbish?

I agree that the name-calling has got a little over-the-top and I’d appreciate it if the folks would scale it down a little. Think of the old rule for criticizing a judge: you can say that his judgment was idiotic, but you can’t say that’s he’s an idiot. In the case at hand, you can say that Gary is peddling outrageous whoppers (better yet to point them out and provide supporting links), but unless you’re going to do a big post capturing a whole host if inaccuracies  cannot be explained by stupidity or incompetence alone, it’s not appropriate to call him a “lier.”

But back to my question: Gary, you spend more time on this site than the people who work here, which suggests to me that this is more than a hobby. Care to comment?

The problem is that Gary spouts any old nonsense, expecting other people to do a lot of work to prove him wrong This is a waste of time for those of us who are not being paid to post here. By the time a cogent reply can be composed, the discussion has moved on.

I don’t call people liars unless I believe they are deliberately telling lies. Gary and other trolls here display a consistent dishonesty and a complete lack of intellectual integrity. I won’t waste my time on writing detailed explanations which they will ignore anyway.

You have the problem common to forums of how to deal with trolls. Basically you can let them rampage freely and destroy all chance of having a useful discussion; or you can moderate the posts, which is what you are doing now in a limited way; or you can establish and enforce rules for banning posters, such as any who commit smears, make substantive claims without backing them up, or attack other posters. For instance, Zog especially should be banned for his many gratuitous attacks on Ian Forrester; Gary, Rob, Zog et al should be banned for their smears, etc.

CENSORSHIP. Thats the answer to making sure the propoganda is never challenged.

You learn that in China?

If you were to open your mind for even a day, some real knowledge might seep in.
You would then realize that the world is unfolding as it should and the GW is completely natural.
And over BTW.

Very sensible suggestion on the civility. Since my responses are generally equal in tone to the attacks I receive.
Although I almost never call names.
Why do I bother here?
I wish I were paid…..:)

Its fun.
I research what I post even if I don’t link it.
I don’t just assume that any scientist that disagrees is dishonest or inpompetent.
They all have valuable input and to simply dismiss them is more religeous fervor than Science. And we can always dig up dirt on anybody on either side… Don’t get me started on Mann and Hansen.
I just think there should always be a skeptical voice on important topics.
I am honestly convinced by the good counter science that GW was (or perhaps is) natural.
I really object to Society being tricked into a Trillion dollar overhaul for a greenie agenda mistake.
The public deserves ALL the facts when deciding on policy not just the AGW approved ones.

Besides, a day is not complete without Ian or Frank or VJ calling me some name.

Cheers Richard. (I would never admit it but I do respect your posts)

… even though I don’t link it.”

 Live it up. Give us the links. If you can actually provide factual backup for even part of what you are saying, heck, the abuse could fall of dramatically. 

It won’t.
All links that don’t support AGW are simply called False, a lie, written by a hack, the author drove a car once…..
No checking, no reading, no intelligent rebuttal, just trash talk in a feeble attempt to divert others from reading them.
Therefore, I have most often preferred that people look up their own source since they are so easy to find. That way they can’t just claim that mine is heresy and declare it false without reading it.
And no I don’t accept RealClimate opinions as credible.

You really don’t understand how science is published, or any academic work for that matter, do you?

People cite their sources so that other people can evaluate those sources. If the source is no good, any argument based on information from that source is also no good. If you choose bad sources, you will have bad information and will not be able to understand what is really happening.

It seems to me that if one really believes co2 is harmful then more nuclear is the realistic alternative. Nations are not going to give up low cost 24/7 energy.

thorium is the green nuclear http://www.energyfromthorium.com/


“A number of influential people in Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam say the planet is now entering a 30-year cooling period, the second half of a normal cycle driven by cyclical changes in the sun’s output and currents in the Pacific Ocean. Their theory leaves true believers in carbon catastrophe livid.

To judge by actions, not words, the carbon-warming view hasn’t come close to persuading a political majority even in nations considered far more environmentally enlightened than China and India. Europe’s coal consumption is rising, not falling, and the Continent won’t come close to meeting the Kyoto targets for carbon reduction. Australia is selling coal to all comers.”

You are absolutely correct.
But you have missed one big point.
AGW is not about climate or fixing anything.
It is about changing society.
The Green left is not at all interested in technological solutions.
They have clearly and candidly stated exaclty that.
They want social change.
The want to control everything you think do and say.

Just read the thread above. It will become obvious.

The Catholic Church tried to gain such control in the dark ages.
They evne invented the Carbon offset scam. It was called Papal Indulgence. Look it up. The similarity is uncanny.