Global-warming deniers shift gears in their distraction conspiracy

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says what makes the global warming denial industry so dangerous is its potential to preclude or delay necessary actions – caps on carbon emissions, development of new energy sources – that will assure human civilization's future on the planet. Anything that prevents us from acting quickly is a cause of future peril.

Global warming deniers need only look at the shrinking South Cascades Glacier and Chikamin Glacier in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, or the rapidly receding glacial tongues of Canada's Columbia Icefield – a vital water source for the Columbia and other great North American rivers. In British Columbia, the pine bark beetle – no longer controlled by winter cold – has killed millions of acres of forests.

One can argue that any country in which a large percentage of people believe that planet Earth was created in six days – and do not accept evolution – will believe anything,” the newspaper said.

A belief that blocks or delays action is dangerous. No one will save us. We must save ourselves.”


Of course all correct thinking folks like you and I are convinced of the reality of manmade global warming, but Al Gore needs to man-up soon and have a public debate with the naysayers, or he’s going to lose this fight for us all.

Al Gore is not a scientist, nor are most of the naysayers that go after him. 

The “debate” belongs in the peer-reviewed literature. Debating won't do anything other than creating the appearance of a debate.

I thought the science was settled so why is there a debate still on-going in peer-reviewed literature or anywhere else? In fact, since the science is settled, why is there still any climate research to be reported in scientific journals? Must be some scientists out there who haven’t got the Desmog message yet.

Meanwhile those sneaky denieralists are still at it. Last week on the Lowell Green show on CFRA in Ottawa, one of Canada’s most listened-to talk shows, Tim Ball was on for two full hours, discussing climate change and answering listeners’ questions. He did a great job.

Did you notice the quotation marks around “debate”? Lack of attention to detail like that is what you guys do best. For example, did you notice that the “debate” among the real climatologists is not about whether AGW occurs? The issues that Tim Ball was discussing were no doubt different than those currently discussed in the scientific literature. Tell me, how badly were Ball’s credentials inflated on the Lowell Green show? Did he fib about his competence in the field as well as he fibbed about the state of the science? Good job Tim!

Ahh nice to see you posting again John I was missing your nonsense and drivel. As Ian would say and I really do agree you have no clue how research science is conducted. Many things are relatively agreed on by science, like evolution, global warming, but one could go father in things like epinasty in plants, or neural transmission in axons. Point being is many things are well agreed upon in science but still have research conducted to explore and answer questions in those areas. Considering my own research was on a topic at least 30 years old, with a good body of existing publications I can attest there is always more to learn, even if the ideas are well established.

As always though you missed the point, and come back with the Tim Ball is my hero message. Good luck with that, to bad he 1) isn’t a climate researcher 2) Hasn’t published any climate change and the possible human aspects in any way shape or form within the past 10 years 3) Claims the world is cooling. How you continue to cheerlead this fellow is beyond me, well no, considering the nonsense you post perhaps it makes sense.

Looks like we agree, Carl. The science is not settled. Scientists agree the globe has warmed – by about a degree Celsius since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is still much to learn about why this has happened. Someone ought to tell the Desmoggers. They keep saying the “Science Is Settled” which, of course, is nonsense.

And that’s why Tim Ball and others in the “denieralist” camp can command air time. Anyone with common sense knows the science is not settled yet all they hear from the warmist camp is rhetoric and exhortations from sooty hypocrites like Al Gore and private jet rock stars to live green. So they turn to people with more open minds – people like Tim Ball and others associated with NRSP – to get some balance.

And Tim Ball et al. are more than welcome to submit their scientific evidence for peer-review. Where's the science refuting the IPCC's claim that the current warming is human-induced, John?

With so many lines of evidence backing the anthropogenic-forcing theory of global warming, I would suspect there would be a multitude of studies refuting the conclusions and evidence. 

Assuming you have all of these studies at your fingertips, please send them to me.

God knows I've asked enough times for this.

And by the way, an “open mind” doesn't mean much, unless that  “open mind” is backing his or her “openess” with actual scientific data. For instance, my mind is “open” to the possibility that there is alien life, but until I actually see any evidence for it (or better yet, collect the evidence myself), I'm not going to run around telling everyone that we should put on our foil hats.   

And this concludes my Thursday morning rant – I should probably have coffee before writing these things! 

The science questioning the AGW hypopthesis and the IPCC computer modellers is out there, Kevin, but there is no one website or place you can go because it is growing body of research-based evidence published in a variety of places. Desmoggers can find it if they look but I doubt they are really interested. Desmog’s interest is making personal attacks on those who write papers, give interviews or write newspaper pieces refuting the IPCC AGW line. Desmog is all about attacking messengers because it cannot deal with their messages and still maintain the fiction that the “science is settled”.

There is a difference between a general theory being accepted and the fine points being knocked about. There is no debate that anthropomorphic global warming is taking place – and big time – the research is now focused on the intricacies. The papers that you will find being produced are not debating the basic premise, they are dealing with the minutiae. If you want a parallel, look at evolution. Everyone (except the Neanderthals) accepts that evolution is a valid and supportable theory. But the scientific process continues to fine-tune the initial theory to make it more precise. Darwin would have welcomed this critique, and would be actively involved in its development if he had lived to the present day. Lowell Green is a joke, and everybody knows it. I would worry if the global warming issue DIDN’T turn up on his show.

Although we have seen this progression from AGW deniers:

1) The world ain’t warming; 2) okay, it is but it’s not due to CO2; 3) okay, it looks like it’s due to CO2, but the effect is small and it’s too difficult to produce less CO2

I think we now see the AGW deniers regressing. I think what we’re seeing is a full-court press – claims that the globe ain’t warming are again becoming popular “and if it is, it’s the sun”, etc. When we’ve seen attacks more often in Iraq, Cheney et al have said it’s a good sign because it means the dead-enders are in their death throws. I think that’s equally wrong here. Sure, the obfuscators are getting more desparate, but they are far from done.

I am a christian and a supporter of stopping the climate crisis. I believe the world was created in 6 days. The length of Earth time it took for does days to pass is unimaginable. It could have and was more than likely billions of years. This newspaper should keep its mind open as well. Insulting the christians is not the way to change the world. We need them they are a large part of the population and can swing elections. It isn’t a “christian or non-christian” discussion. It should be a “human or non-human” discussion.

When I was in public school, I asked the religion teacher how long creation might have taken, because somewhere in the Bible I had read that a thousand years is but a day gone by to God etc. What was a “day” before all of this came to be? I have since left the church and those beliefs behind, and am an atheist, but I have great respect for the faith of my fathers (and mothers) for whom it was a source of great strength. It is NOT an issue of how you might think all of this came into being (“it’s turtles all the way down”), it is an issue of being a good steward of the planet. Whether you think it was given to us by one god or another, or just blew into existence according to laws of nature doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have been fruitful and multiplied to such a degree that we are now a factor in determining its fate. Somewhere else on this site I have commented on the odious assumption that people who advocate population control are somehow out to kill people. There are a lot of nutty folks out there. We have to make sane choices. How many kids we have is one of them.