The Ever Growing Partisan Divide Over Global Warming

Depressing doesn’t even begin to capture it.

On the one hand, scientists have become increasingly certain that climate change is real and human caused. They’re now saying “very likely,” a degree of certainty equivalent to greater than 90 percent.

Yet at the same time, the two U.S. political parties have grown increasingly polarized over whether to accept this fact about the world. There’s now a 30 percent gap between Democrats and Republicans in their likelihood of believing the above to be true. This gap has widened, even as scientific doubt has narrowed.

That’s the finding of a comprehensive new study (press release here) on our polarization over climate change by Aaron McCright of Michigan State and Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State. They looked at 10 years of Gallup polling on the issue, and found a steady march in opposite directions for the two parties. Or as the authors put it: “Moving from the right to the left along the political spectrum increases respondents’ likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and of expressing personal concern about global warming.” That’s academic speak, so they didn’t add on the following next sentence, as I would have done: “A lot.”

 But that’s not the only thing McCright and Dunlap looked at. They wanted to examine another issue as well, based on the data: Did the divide over climate change have anything to do with citizen educational attainment or self-expressed understanding of the issue? After all, this is a scientific topic. You’d expect those who understand it better to believe the science more, regardless of party.

But a number of studies have suggested this is not the case if you’re a Republican or conservative, and the sweeping new analysis of McCright and Dunlap confirms this as well. Or as they put it, after crunching the data: “The effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on beliefs about climate science and personal concern about global warming are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans.”

How did we get to such a point—where ideology and party identity not only strongly predict whether you accept science on a critical issue, but also whether your level of education or understanding will make matters better or worse?

McCright and Dunlap have important ideas here as well. They postulate that underlying ideologies about how society should be run, the benefits and costs of industrial capitalism, and whether the market should be regulated, predict different dispositions towards climate change science–but also that the way we currently receive information about the issue reinforces polarization. Let’s give them the last word on this (ever depressing) front:

New information on climate change (e.g., an IPCC report) is thus unlikely to reduce the political divide. Instead, citizens’ political orientations filter such learning opportunities in ways that magnify this divide. Political elites selectively interpret or ignore new climate change studies and news stories to promote their political agendas. Citizens, in turn, listen to their favored elites and media sources where global warming information is framed in a manner consistent with their pre-existing beliefs on the issue (Hindman 2009).We believe this occurred within the American public between 2001 and 2010, and our results seem to bear this out.

Yes, indeed. Motivated reasoning, anyone?


> They’re now saying “very likely,” a degree of certainty equivalent to greater than 90 percent.

Why is Chris Mooney always just a little bit wrong? The IPCC AR4 (published in 2007, built on science that was published at least a year before that) stated certainty at 90%. That certainly level has increased since then.

There is no credible scientific doubt that human activity is heating the planet. It’s as much fact as evolution.

This issue has no place for wishy washy language from those who wish to accurately inform the public.

Oddly enough it’s you who has to always be a little bit wrong.

90%+ is “Very likely”. Which it would have to be since there isn’t a “slightly more very likely” at 91%, and so on and confidence levels are continuous variables, not discrete.

Ant it would have been 95%+ but politicians wanted the science watered down so as not to annoy rich industries.

The actual quote is: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).”

Note, that only specifies that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is “very likely”, and “significant” is not clearly defined.

It’s also worth noting that the IPCC make a clear distinction between statements of likelihood and confidence. If this had referred to confidence in the science, they would have used the words “very high confidence”. (AR4, 1.6, box 1.1.) Likelihood is defined as a conditional - it is the probability of an event or result given that the science is correct.

I’m not really sure what your point is, but it looks like a silly game of semantics where you makes claims that are not supported by what you cite.

There is no credible scientific doubt that human activity is dangerously heating the planet, e.g.:

* American Physical Society: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. … The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

Democrats don’t really believe AGW. They talk about it but have no sincere intention of taking the radical action that they so often claim they are in support of.

What’s emerging is that AGW is a tool to promote a political agenda. Science has been corrupted as a direct result.

What is always lost, in these semantic games, is the FACT that in no time of history, and I mean NO TIME, that can show a direct cause and effect of increasing CO2 followed by a rise in temperature. NO WHERE IN HISTORY. There is only speculation and inaccurate models that attempt to attribute CO2 and temperature together.

I challenge any supposed AGW proponent to prove that increases in CO2 than cause temperature to rise. You will find it never happening in the geological record…..NEVER.

Forces that cause global warming or cooling for that matter, are things like ocean oscillation, orbital / axis changes, vulcanism, tectonic plate movement, solar activity etc… Things that are far and away much more momentous then a few extra PPM added to the atmosphere. Which, btw, is 6 Trillion tons. Someone going to continue to tell me that a trace compound element of less than .035% is going to affect such a monstrously large mass???? In addition, there is never been one reported historical incident of high levels of CO2 and an increase in temperature?

The only things these supposed morons are finding is that since the last ice age temperature has been rising and a lag of about 800 years CO2 increases.

(1) cause must precede effect, (2) correlation does not prove causation, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.

Luckily, as I have mentioned before, there is a simple cure if the sufferer is willing to admit that they are suffering from DKS and that they wish to be cured. Go to your nearest library and read some science texts.

As for your comment:

“I challenge any supposed AGW proponent to prove that increases in CO2 than cause temperature to rise. You will find it never happening in the geological record…..NEVER.”

That is so wrong. There are lots of examples. A good one to read about and learn from is the fact that changes in CO2 levels caused the earth to enter a phase which is termed “snowball earth” (lowering of CO2) and caused the reversal and subsequent warming (increased CO2).

In case you are averse to reading you can watch a video showing how CO2 controlled the global temperature over geological history:

Ian Forrester says “the fact………”

This is an example of the total delusion syndrome. Unlike MDK it’s much harder to cure.

I recommend you start by going down to your library and read a little more widely on the subject you reference. You will not find a single ‘fact’ to reference. Multiple theories and models etc., sort of like what we call science. However, this is unlikely to be of help to your condition, alas.

I saw Dr. Alleys video. First thing to note he clearly indicates that there is no proof, he is merely making a hypothesis. Are you even functionally aware of the difference betwen proof and hypothesis?

Also, you might want to brush up on Duhem-Quine theory before you start concluding hypostesis is validating.

Also, you seem to be victimized by something known as confirmation bias by using hyposthesis in formulating your conclusions.

Also, if you have watched this video you note that he makes numerous mentions that we are not sure, but we have confidence that what we conclude may be accurate. This is a long road from proof.

Lastly he makes conclusions regarding CO2 levels. As stated in my post, there may be a correlation between CO and temperature, BUT there is not and still NOT a direct cuase and effect associated between CO2 levels preceeding temperature increases. You have done nothing to obviate this contention.

Unfortunately you seem to lack knowledge in this area. Of course science cannot prove anything only disprove it. You have not disproved Alley’s work. It is a lot more than a mere “hypothesis”.

Dunning Kruger is rife among you deniers.

Ian Forrester:

I’m delighted that there appears to be an improvement in your condition when I note that you now say:

“Of course science cannot prove anything”

Therefore no ‘facts’ as we recently discussed.

This is great progress on what would normally be considered, in your case, an irreversible condition. Brills, keep it up….

His stupidity is in thinking that one needs 100% proof for some thing to be correct and established as a fact.

It is a fact, but not proven to 100% accuracy (but close enough) that all AGW deniers such as Titus et al. are ignorant of science, stupid, dishonest and despicable people who seem to want to force future generations into a less than optimum lifestyle because of their actions and words.

Titus, you should be ashamed of yourself for your arrogance, narcissism, dishonesty and greed.

Ian Forrester:

So when you say as above:

“the ‘fact’ that changes in CO2 levels caused the earth to enter a phase which is termed “snowball earth”.

As you know this is one of several therories of a condition that is only spectulated and of which again, there are multiple theories as to what it is that’s being decribed.

Question: When is a ‘fact’ not a fact?

Answer: When it’s defined by Ian Forrester.

You are obviously not familiar with the Popper doctrine of scientific theory, it states that for a hypothesis to be scientific it must be falsifiable. Meaning that if you make a claim, i.e. that CO2 drives temperature, you must show how this can be falsified. i.e. that CO2 is NOT the driver of temperature.

Under what conditions can it be shown that CO2 is not the driver of temperature so I can attempt to prove false your primary claim?

Also, what if I were to show you that there may be other circumstances where CO2 may be elevated and yet temperature falls? For instance on t=of the primary drives of temperature is ocean oscillation.

“Most of the additional records shown here do not show the steady temperature increase that is superposed on the oscillation in the surface records which is generally assumed to be due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases. Since this rise is missing from most of the other records, its attribution to greenhouse gas forcing must be wrong. .The rise most probably results from the biases and uncertainties connected with the compilation of the surface record.”

You also should familiarize yourself with the Dunhem-Quine theory to understand the uncertainty in knowledge with regards to this hypothesis. This is not a simple truth-value of C02 and temperature. There are a myriad of constituent circumstances that are factors of climate change and one can not be certain of any of the values.

Scientists use what is called the scientific method. Popper and other people who “study” science rather than actually do it get their knickers in a twist arguing about some thing which they know nothing about from a practicable point of view.

Whenever any one brings up “Popper” I immediately think, “fool, you know nothing about how science as actually conducted”.

Ask any real scientists and they will probably not even know who Popper was. Some people talk about science, real scientists get out and actually do it.

Ian Forrester:

Reducing your arguments to an ad hominem attack indicates you have abandoned the topic at hand. Ask any REAL scientist if they use deductive or inductive logic to evaluate their results? If they use deductive then they are using Poppers methods. They dont have to know who built the car to understand what they are seeing.

ALL real scientist look for a flaw in a hypothesis; once found the entire premise fails. THIS is the methodology of Popper and is the current standard of most reputable scientists.

Current claim of human climate change muggers is that CO2 is increasing and temperature is following. Truth value of this circumstance can not be found.

There is proof that temperature has increased then CO2 followed. There is proof that temperature has fallen and CO2 was at high levels. There is even proof that temperature was elevated and CO2 levels were low. Hmmm…. All of these conditions can be seen in the past. What has NEVER been seen is CO2 increases and temperature follows.

Whatever this conditions is, it cant be shown to have happened before so it is hypothetical and inconclusive with regards to facts at this time.

Also, just to kick up the dust somewhat, our current interglacial times show that temperature increased FIRST and CO2 has followed (just like past observations have shown). Current opinions hold that even though temperature has been increasing for 10,000 years (since the last ice age)humans are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere ergo we are speeding up the process. (I wont get into water vapor, methane etc…)

You MUST at least conclude, based on the truth value of the proposition, that there is NOT a direct cause and effect of CO2 rising first and temperature following.

Start at the obvious facts and move on from there. If you want to propose that increased CO2 concentrations are accelerating temperature rising, that is a different hypothesis, but I have proved my initial point.

Just to make sure we are all on the same simple page. CO2 DOES NOT precede temperature increases. Start at that proven fact and work from there, or prove this truth value wrong.

Most scientists who actually do science use what is called the observational/empiricism method of scientific discovery. That is part of the standard scientific method. You make an observation, propose a hypothesis to explain your observations then conduct experiments to support your hypothesis.

All this nonsense which deniers use, Popperisms, post modern science etc are just rubbish because they cannot accept the fact that human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming which will not be good for future generations.

Get over it or are you too much of an ignorant and arrogant denier to accept scientific facts? Just about everything you said in your last post can easily be shown to be pseudo science which is promoted by AGW deniers, not scientists.


I cant believe that I am responding to this nonsense. You refuse to use logic or reason as tools of cognition. The one dimensional method of empiricism / observation has little if any scientific value. This logical positivist approach does not lead to accurate conclusions. You are flat wrong.

To prove my point I will offer a simple / factual thought experiment. Take some aforementioned empiricist / positivist that concludes the earth is warming, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere ergo, CO2 is increasing temperature.

Now, to make this connection concrete in people eyes (they don’t want to use proof or validation) he shows us a reduction in Arctic ice and how over the past 10 years or so the Arctic ice cap has been losing sea ice.

Now, since this seems conclusive, anyone disputing the claim MUST be a moron. Now, lets say there is another person studying Arctic ice and notes the same effect over the last 10 years that the sea ice is decreasing. Hmm….now he can use the hypothesis that first person conjectured, but since they are more inclined to prove for themselves he postulates a different cause. That being ocean oscillations.\

First question would be how to reconcile the same effect, but competing cause. Well, empiricism could not do that for you, so what would be left? Tell me Mr. scientist, how would you reconcile this obvious conflict?

To make my point let me show you FACT of this point:

Near-surface air temperatures over the Siberian and Alaskan side of the Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in November. Air temperatures over Baffin Bay were also unusually warm (8 degrees Celsius, or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average). The warm air came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere; and a circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south.

Notice that it states CIRCULATION PATTERNS was one of the causes of warming? Circulation patterns ARE NOT affected by CO2 emissions. Notice I didn’t discount that it could be warming, just that it was NOT from an isolated man-made cause?

Notice that the empiricist / observation method may not be conclusive. Any chance you can concede that Arctic sea ice levels could be affected by ocean oscillation patterns and NOT CO2 levels? Am I still a denier because I see hard scientific FACTS that conflict with other so called FACTS? Hmm…

If you know so much about how science is conducted why don’t you tell us about some of the science you have performed. I predict that it will be a very short post. You continue to show that you are ignorant of science and the scientific method.

So, by your logic, Newton, Darwin, Thomson (Kelvin), Wilson, Joule, Arrhenius and all the great scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries are wrong? What a joke you are. Typical denier posturing and hot air emanating from an intellectually challenged mind.


I appreciate your responses to my comments, at this point we have gone past the topic and are being reduced to ad homiem responses to incoherent rhetoric.

I gave you a link to a scientific paper disputing the claim that current ice levels in the Arctic are shrinking based on increasing CO2, but possibly due to changes in ocean oscillation and your continued response is to label me a denier and attack me personally.

You have not addressed my contention that there is no proof indicating a direct cause and effect with the relationship to increases of CO2 emissions and temperature.

You have failed to address each of my points and show the flaws to my reasoning.

Why is the contention that CO2 emissions are the only driver of climate and anyone that shows a contrary view a so called denier?

Look up confirmation bias and see if your picture is next to the definition.

Respectfully, Darren

Isn’t it funny that whenever a denier is shown the ignorance they show in their futile attempts to claim that human emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with global warming, even denying that the globe is warming, that they resort to claiming “ad hominem” attack.

You show that your ability in understanding the English language is as poor as your understanding of science.

There is not one ad hominem comment in all of my posts in this thread. A statement of truth cannot be considered to be “ad hominem”. You show your lack of understanding of science in every post.

As noted above, your listing of your achievements in science is very short, in fact it is non existent.

Darren’s ad hominem:

“Me Thinks the Fool Speaks Too Much”

The only fool is anyone who agrees with the nonsense Darren is spouting on this thread. As I mentioned previously, real scientists do not go about quoting or talking about Popper, they get their hands dirty in the field or in the lab doing real and honest science.

Enough said.

Ian keeps making the claim that we are denying science,(with no evidence of course) and then claiming all science deniers are morons, but denies making ad hominem attacks. lol…

Climate science is a large non-linear chaotic system. Making a simple hypothesis, i.e. the man-made CO2 emissions are the sole reason for climate changing strain credulity. It dismisses all the other planetary condition’s that affect climate such as: Ocean oscillation, vulcanism, radiative forcing, orbital rotations, tectonic plate movement, axis tilts, solar activity etc… All these factors effect climate AND the nature of CO2 in the environment.

Also, he mentions Kepler, Kelvin, Newton….All had great contributions to science, but had errors. If someone took them at face value and didn’t question their conclusions we would have been left with major errors in their conclusions.

Keplers 3rd law of planetary motion was off…Newtons law of gravity was wrong…Kelvin was wrong on his theory of why the sun burns.

The irony of this post is people like Ian use what’s called common sense science. They see buring CO2 enter the atmosphere and conclude, in their own mind, it must be having an effect so anything that confirms this becomes fact even though it is simply factiod. Since he himself has no background in science he can only take what is given to him from others therefore he attacks the messenger.

One last point, the claim that man-made CO2 emissions are changing the climate is a theory. This has not entered the lexicon as fact. One point to consider that as the earth warms by whatever mechanism driving it, CO2 will be naturally released from other sources such as the ocean. How in the holy hell is science able to determine from what source a particular CO2 molecule came from? Meaning, if there is 350 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and this amount doubles, how can they tell if it is man-made or from other natural sources?

Ian Forrester says: “so .. all the great scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries are wrong?

Of course they are, along with every scientist in history. As we do today, they based their theories on the understandings of their times. Their work has enabled us to capitalize on nature’s resources; however, they were wrong in their understanding as the theories have had to develop and change to accommodate new knowledge and usefulness. And we are still wrong; we just have more ‘advanced’ theories that try to explain even greater complexities as we use science to progress them.

Imagine basing our current understanding on the earth being flat or being the center of a rotating universe. These were based on sound science of their times (ie. how could you not fall or be thrown off if it was’nt etc.) and served us well over thousands of years; for far longer than our current theories.

Isn’t it funny that AGW deniers are anti-science and hate scientists? Why, in such a technologically advanced world do we have people such as Titus and Darren who are so hateful of science and scientists?

It has to be much more than just ignorance of science but is it religious, political, narcissism or just plain old greed? Probably a mixture of all of these to some extent.

Where have I once said or even given the slightest hint about hating scientist? More like on the absolute and total contrary.

Like Darren, I’m amazed at myself for continuing this thread. You are a great study for my developing understanding of the how and why of AGW think.

For that I thank you.

Note this response applies to both Titus and Anonymous/Darren.

You are laughable in your contortions to try and hide the following:

You know nothing about science.

You obviously have a vested interest in claiming that AGW does not exist.

You are typical of AGW deniers in that you keep on spreading your nonsense even though you are shown to be wrong again and again. In more progressive blogs this is referred to as spamming and is discouraged in a variety of ways.

You continue to use the term ad hominem when you have been told that the remarks you are calling ad hominem are not so but accurately reflect your behaviour as shown by what you post and your interpretation of climate science.

We are “not amazed” at your continuing blustering and issuing of nonsense and untruths. It is typical denier behaviour.

This post is getting so far off topic is it amazing. A) I never said climate wasn’t changing. B) I have used scientific theory, I postulated that there were no morons out there that could believe that a man made situation was the sole controlling factor in climate change. Proved me wrong there Ian. Btw, does coming to a wrong conclusion indicate lack of scientific methods?

Show me where there is one legimate scientist that you study that has stated, conclusively, that the idea of AGW is fact beyond any shade of doubt and they refuse to do anymore scientific research on this topic since the outcome is sooo obvious.

Unless you postulate that AGW is certain by a factor of 100% then there is always Fallibilism involved.

How certain are you certain of the certainties? This is a simple truth value. It is either 100% certain or less than 100%. Anything less than 100% and there is room to deny, anything above less than 100% makes you a true believer and no amount of objective data would move you. Rigid and idealistic.

Just to show you that there is always a measure of doubt in conjecture. To argue that the earth is not round is obviously stupid, but what if someone where to postulate that the earth is not round, but oblong? Would you label that person a round earth denier?????

You might want to brush up on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle when you start pronouncing absolute truth.

I have often heard talk that science is now the new religion. I find it fascinating how you portray the different types of science as having the true doctrines. Like; are you a Catholic or Protestant and which denomination do you belong. You even give the appearance of a Fundamentalist. Insightful. Thank you again.

You are in small parts right, but ultimately very wrong:

Of course, your argument on CO2 comes down to proclaiming that humans never deliberately cause forest fires, since in the geological past you cannot find any other animal that deliberately has caused forest fires.

And another thing: would you be willing to inhale 1 mg of botulinum toxin A? MUUUUUUCH less than 0.001 percent of your body weight, but you WILL die. Or perhaps eat 100 mg of selenium (notably a crucial element that you should have in your diet) ? That 100 mg will likely kill you, too, though.

Finally, you are not taking into account that the causation comes from known physics, the stuff that allows CO2 lasers to work, for example.

Wow, to cherry pick information that suits your purpose is the primary effect of confirmation bias. You site Realclimate web site which attempts to state that CO2 precedes temperature. In their own piece they state this:

“At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warming’s take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.” (or it might not, pure speculation not conclusive) emphasis added for effect.

Now, I left everything in the statement so you can see the contradiction inherent in their premise. First, they acknowledge that IN FACT the records show temperature FIRST. They then propose that AFTER the first 800 years CO2 could, in fact, have an amplifying effect. That is not the same as stating a fact that CO2 was first.
This is incredibly important since the primary claim is CO2 being the driver, when clearly they state this is not the FACT.

In addition, all the reversals in warm climates that started the ice ages, when clearly CO2 would have been elevated, contradict this aspect because; why would climate cool IF CO2 was present in high quantities in the atmosphere. Ack… this will be a tough one to argue around I am sure.

Climate is a non-linear chaotic system with multiple circumstances causing climate warming and cooling periods. To conclude that CO2 is the primary factor and reducing the levels would, concurrently, reduce heat is simply fallacious.

To restate, there is still no proven direct cause and effect associated with CO2 levels rising followed by temperature. It has ALWAYS been the reverse. The article you claim corroborates this FACT.

There you will find an account where CO2 increased and then temperature increased.

The move out of a snowball earth was also preceded by GHG increases.

Besides which

1) the warming after CO2 released from warming is caused by the CO2 released. You’re deliberately insisting that no warming occurred from the CO2 released because you don’t like the consequences

2) CO2 doesn’t know why it is released, it just does what CO2 does

3) CO2 slows egress of IR energy. It doesn’t increase that retardation until AFTER it is increased. Please get causality the right way round. Cause THEN effect.

Hey, my electrician told me that the wiring in my house is dangerous and poses a 90 percent risk of setting my house on fire. And so said the next 20 electricians that looked at it … Then I found found one guy who hadn’t actually wired a house, but who said that everyone was OK.

I told the rest of them to get lost until everyone agreed that the risk was 100 percent.

Now that is climate contrarian logic brought home!!

Chris Mooney assures us that ” scientists have become increasingly certain that climate change is real and human caused.”

The questions are:

1. — which scientists is he referring to?

2. — has he read the science implicating increased solar intensity
since the end of the Little Ice Age (seen as driving long term warming) and the science implicating the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (cyclic ocean temperature shifts seen as driving relative warming before 1940, cooling until the late 1970s, warming until the early 2000s and cooling in the last decade)?

As politicians continue to allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the most serious science scam in history, and as they support
the massive expenditure of public funds on subsidies for ‘green energy’ and regulations designed to stage manage NATURAL climate change —
they should take warning that the climate policy debate is moving to the streets.

The climate rally in Western Australia in early April should be seen as a warning that the citizenry is now going to be guided, not only by the
‘climate science consensus’ about human caused global warming touted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – but now
increasingly by scientists and commentators who have had enough of the ‘bully pulpit’ propaganda about carbon emissions that has been seen as
the unquestioned truth for entirely too long.

See / listen to Jo Nova at a Rally in Perth:

– and to David Evans at a Rally in Perth:

April Fool’s Day is at the start of the month not the end but what can we expect from such delusional deniers?

Everyone have a good laugh at his delusions then we can get back to the serious problem of dealing with AGW.

What, in gods name, did your post intend to say?

That denialists are just having a laugh, they know that AGW is happening and is real and a danger but just like joshing?