Global warming still happening

[catswold]

@cats

You seem to be repeating talking points without presenting any evidence. The temperature records are about as solid as it gets, you saying otherwise only proves you have not researched it. Just check out some of the fact checking that has been done on the temp records.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

First, "the temperature record" is as spotty as hell prior to the mid-19th century, to assert otherwise is to indulge in fantasy. I am not disputing temperature records over the last 150 years, which is what the page to which you referred me covers (did you even bother to read it?). In fact that is the problem. We only have 150 years of temperature records, everything else is based on proxies.

You obviously completely ignored or didn't understand my discussion of precision. Are you familiar with the term "precision," as used in science? Are you familiar with the concept of "significant figures?" If your measurements are accurate to 1°C you cannot report a figure accurate to the tenth, i.e. 1.3°C, if your measurements are only accurate to 2-3°C, then you cannot report numbers accurate to the single units, i.e. 1°C.

When you are using proxies for temperature data, you are dealing with a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative measurement. It's an approximation, not a direct measurement and, as was very problematical for Michael Mann in his effort to prove his "hockey stick" graph, because, as I have stated before, the last 50 years of tree-ring data did not track with what actually occurred. That throws the entire data set and all assumptions based on it into question.

Finally, as for the reliability of the reported temperature data coming out of NOAA/NASA. There is strong evidence that temperatures are being carefully manipulated to convey an impression that the raw data do not support. Dr. David Hansen of NASA has been caught playing fast and loose with the numbers, he falsely reported that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Statistical scientists jumped on this claim, leading even NASA to admit it was wrong and the month was normal..

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

You saying there is very little evidence of AGW is like me saying the sun is purple. Just because I say it doesn't make it so. I'm sorry but all the evidence and research disagrees with you. The entire world disagrees with you, the only reason you are arguing in disagreement of AGW is because of propaganda and political deception.

My saying that there is very little evidence of AGW is a FACT. There is no proof or compelling evidence that mankind's activities are causing any observed change. Show me the evidence. Show me how you know that man's activity causes global warming. All they have is an apparent correlation between increases of CO2 over the last 150 years and the increase in global temperatures . . . problem is, we now have 17 consecutive years with no warming. Over the same time period, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen to over 400 ppm.

No, I don't pay attention to "propaganda," Sunshine, I leave that to the vacuous and scientifically challenged who blindly believe whatever they're told by the liberal media and the green movement. "Political deception" is insulting those who disagree with the state approved line. "Political deception" is asserting "the debate is over." As for "propaganda," there has been no greater piece of dishonest "propaganda" than Albert Gore, Jr.'s "An Inconvenient Truth" (the inconvenient truth about "An Inconvenient Truth" is that is wasn't true. CO2 levels trailed the rise in estimated global temperatures, they didn't precede them. They were resultant, not causative). The MSM is rife with propaganda.

No, Sunshine, "the reason I am arguing in disagreement," is because the "science" doesn't stand scrutiny--which is why "the debate is over," the "science is settled," and why the proponents of AGW/CC are resorting to ridicule, threats, insults, and government censorship.

It is also why AGW/CC proponents, like Mann or Hansen or even Al Gore will never debate one of the high profile skeptics in a neutral setting (or at all, for that matter).

There have been no natural events to compensate for the changes we are seeing. You seem to think that the climate changes for no discernible reason and this is a complete fallacy. There is always a trigger to the change. Some examples are solar output variations, volcanoes and asteroids. We cannot find any evidence of these examples. Not because we haven't looked, but because there are none. Nothing matches the changes we are seeing except the increase in CO2 emissions.

LOL!!!! Do you really mean to assert that climate is an unchanging constant? That it would remain precisely as it is today as long as no outside force acted on it? Wow! That's just ignorant..

We know so very little about our climate and how it behaves, what influences it, that you cannot reasonably make such an absurd assertion as, "There is always a trigger to the change."

You can't find what you don't look for and they have not been looking for natural causes--not from day one. Just because there appears to be a correlation between temperature rises and CO2 concentration, doesn't make it so . . . as we now can see very clearly from the data of the past 17 years.

A hypothesis only holds together until an exception is found that cannot be explained. We are currently living in that exception.

Climate does not exist in isolation, it is in constant interaction with the physical environment, variations in ocean currents, wind currents, the planets rotation, axial precession, incident solar radiation, even the eccentricity of the planet's orbit. It is a dynamic system, not a steady-state system, not a closed system.

 

[catswold]

So let me get this straight. You dont have a problem with cleaning up the environment but see no reason to move away from fossil fuels? Its an inherently messy process, just look to the Exxon Valdez, multiple pipeline ruptures, the Horizon... Shit the gulf is screwed for a very very long time. If that's not reason enough to move away from fossil fuels im not sure what you want.

All I was trying to say that besides the climate change circle jerk the points arent mutually exclusive. Regardless of your position on AGW decreased CO2 production can only be a good thing in terms of renewable energy, not having to rely on other countries for energy, being energy independent. Its not like spilled milk, an oil spill can affect the environment for a very long time.

No. The half-life of crude oil in the ocean is surprisingly short, varying between 16.50 and 49.51 days with a turnover times between 23.81and 71.43 days. It is biodegradable and there are billions of little bacteria just waiting to chomp down on it.
Crude oils, composed mostly of diverse aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, regularly escape into the environment from underground reservoirs (the famous tarballs we have here on the Gulf Coast (No, they are not related to drilling activity, they are naturally occurring fissures). Because petroleum hydrocarbons occur naturally in all marine environments, there has been time for numerous diverse microorganisms to evolve the capability of utilizing hydrocarbons as sources of carbon and energy for growth. Oil-degrading microorganisms are ubiquitous, but may only be a small proportion of the prespill microbial community. There are hundreds of species of bacteria, archaea, and fungi that can degrade petroleum.

[Before you erect a straw man, no, I am not saying that oil spills aren't bad]

Most of what you posted seems anecdotal.

We don't need to senselessly throw trillions of dollars away when we already have an abundant, efficient, proven technology.

We already throw trillions away subsidizing this technology. Nothing like corporate welfare to get the gears of capitalism turning.

No, we don't throw "trillions" away subsidizing this technology "already" (at least not until Obama began slinging tax-payer money around to his biggest contributors, like Solyndra and Fisker). As for subsidizing the oil industry, in 2011 Exxon-Mobile paid $27.3 billion with a net income of $41 billion. Chevron, paid $17 billion on a net income of $27 billion, and Conoco-Phillips, $10.6 billion on a net $12.4 billion. That's a tax rate of 42.9, 48.3, and 41.5%, respectively--hardly "subsidized."

Finally, as for the financial gain, all of those researchers at all of those universities depend on grant money for their research and ultimately their careers. Federal grant money is denied to anyone wishing to research natural causes of AGW/CC. "Publish or perish" is the rule in universities.

Anecdotal to the max. You seem to be forgetting about peer review, where multiple people fact check, review and make sure the data provided supports the conclusions. Even if the consensus isnt as high as 97% its still a massive favor for AGW (Im pretty sure neither you nor me are scientists of any kind so we have to rely on those that are in the know). To show this lets look at a privately funded study, this one was funded by the Koch brothers (yes you read that correctly) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Ive been trying to track down a link to the study itself and will provide as soon as I find it.

But there is a veritable cornucopia of peer reviewed studies out there from damn near every reliable source, but if your argument boils down to "But scientists lie to keep their jobs!" Then we have moved onto the court of popular opinion because surely scientists that find the opposite must be doing exactly the same thing so its all a moot point. Which would make being a climate denying scientist a very easy job, just take the millions the kochs and the corporatocracy throw at denying AGW and prove whatever those people want you to prove.

Im also all for the free market patching this system up but please look at the amount of money traditional energy companies are receiving, does this count as open capitalism? Is it acceptable for oil companies to buy up patents for new battery technology using these subsidies?

The peer review process is useless, if the peers doing the reviewing are all attempting to suppress contradictory work. The CRU emails releases prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that AGW scientists were conspiring to prevent so-called "skeptic" papers from being accepted by journals, going so far as to threaten the journals with boycotts. From the CRU emails:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

There you go, a nice real-life conspiracy.

No, oil companies are not suppressing new battery technology, they are not buying up miracle solutions that generate hundreds of miles per gallon just to keep their sales up (consumption already exceeds production capacity). I know for a fact that oil companies are spending billions in research on alternative fuels, fuel cells, battery technology so that they can add those to all of their other income sources. It's pure liberal fantasy that oil companies are conspiring to prevent any new technologies from being exploited.

It's been real, but I don't have the time to keep this up. Remain gullible, ignorant, and naive if you choose. Until I see real hard evidence of the anthropogenic portion of AGW, I'll remain a . . . "DENIER . . . (cue the evil music.

I'm always open to convincing, I just have a higher standard that "it appears," "it is likely," "the consensus is," "we estimate that," or the worst of all, "our models tell us," or "our models confirm." PURE DRECK.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I would be careful linking anything from Roy Spencer as well. It seems he has a nasty preposition to altering his data to fit his needs. The only way he can get published is by using journals that know nothing about the subject.

Sort of like Michael Mann and the intentionally altered climate data at East Anglia University? Oh, wait, he is in favor of AGW so mucking with the data thus is perfectly fine, just like Lois Lerner's e-mails were actually honestly lost in a single-drive HDD failure...

 

[gropouce]

Always fun to read when someone talks about "science"... (word that doesn't mean many things alone... i know "sciences of physic, of biomechanic, but "science".... don't know)

In here, we use to say: science is like jam, the less you have, the more you spread it.

 

[catswold]

I would be careful linking anything from Roy Spencer as well. It seems he has a nasty preposition to altering his data to fit his needs. The only way he can get published is by using journals that know nothing about the subject.

Sort of like Michael Mann and the intentionally altered climate data at East Anglia University? Oh, wait, he is in favor of AGW so mucking with the data thus is perfectly fine, just like Lois Lerner's e-mails were actually honestly lost in a single-drive HDD failure...

Not precisely, Roy Spencer is not guilty of what they accuse him of, and he has posted his response to their lies and half-truths. I posted a link earlier.

 

[catswold]

Always fun to read when someone talks about "science"... (word that doesn't mean many things alone... i know "sciences of physic, of biomechanic, but "science".... don't know)

In here, we use to say: science is like jam, the less you have, the more you spread it.

It's always fun to read the posts of someone attempting to appear intellectually superior while never actually saying anything of substance. Around here we call it trying to "baffle them with bullshit." It usually follows a failed attempt at dazzling everyone with your brilliance.

Probably sounds very familiar to you.

 

[wanamingo]

This is an interesting point, 15 years 1000+ emails illegal hacked and this is the only thing people can dig up on this supposed huge ring of elite scientists making fraudulent papers. But the real question here is because they had a beef with an editor how does that change the outcome of the paper? There are multiple independent reviews of their work and every single one of them all reach the same conclusion, their math is sound. All the scientists involved have been cleared. Heres some extracurrculars for your reading enjoyment.

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/documents/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf - Review of the paper and process in question, apologies because its a scholarly resource made by multiple PHD's

http://www.cce-review.org/ - Independent review

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf - UK HoC review of the paper.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf - UK gov's response to the HoC

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f!OpenDocument - EPA's review (Cant trust the gov)

web.archive.org/web/20110330133202/http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf - US DoC

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/NSF-Mann-Closeout.pdf National science foundation

Now again, what in those emails changes the outcome of their conclusions? Im not a scientist, I can barely clean and dress myself in a socially acceptable way so I have to rely on people who have a much more precise knowledge of many things. I have a feeling you are in the same boat, just a regular dude.

Now if we throw out the entire peer review process and assume that literally 90+% of all climate scientists and governments are in on this then there is literally no source you can trust one way or another. If there arent any sources you or I can trust then we are both flying blind and you shouldnt have a strong stance one way or another because if the science cant convince you, the temperature and weather changes cant convince you then nothing will convince you.

Whats the best info you have against AGW? Or Climate Change in general?

 

[gropouce]

It's always fun to read the posts of someone attempting to appear intellectually superior while never actually saying anything of substance. Around here we call it trying to "baffle them with bullshit." It usually follows a failed attempt at dazzling everyone with your brilliance.

Probably sounds very familiar to you.

I guess you felt concerned by my message.
I bring something substancial to this debate when it will be a little more than a simple statement of internet link battle.
I have already spoken on the subject. I've been around and I stop when the debate became sterile and uninteresting. Feel free to find a correlation between the lack of substancial of my interventions and your participation.

Believe me or not, you said some things i agreed with.

 

[catswold]

This is an interesting point, 15 years 1000+ emails illegal hacked and this is the only thing people can dig up on this supposed huge ring of elite scientists making fraudulent papers. But the real question here is because they had a beef with an editor how does that change the outcome of the paper? There are multiple independent reviews of their work and every single one of them all reach the same conclusion, their math is sound. All the scientists involved have been cleared. Heres some extracurrculars for your reading enjoyment.

----------------snip----------------

Now again, what in those emails changes the outcome of their conclusions? Im not a scientist, I can barely clean and dress myself in a socially acceptable way so I have to rely on people who have a much more precise knowledge of many things. I have a feeling you are in the same boat, just a regular dude.

Far from correct. Conspiring with colleagues to prevent "skeptic" papers from being public by applying pressure to journals and threatening boycotts. Falsifying data. Discussions of how to prevent divergences in data and model results from being made public . . . all sorts of unethical behavior are well documented in those emails.

Now if we throw out the entire peer review process and assume that literally 90+% of all climate scientists and governments are in on this then there is literally no source you can trust one way or another. If there arent any sources you or I can trust then we are both flying blind and you shouldnt have a strong stance one way or another because if the science cant convince you, the temperature and weather changes cant convince you then nothing will convince you.

Whats the best info you have against AGW? Or Climate Change in general?

I never called for an end to the peer review process, I simply point out that it no longer functions as it was supposed to. It has fallen victim to the political dogma of AGW.

As for the best info I have against AGW:

Well, aside from the ludicrous assumption that mankind is even capable of significantly affecting global temperatures as an inadvertant by-product of his activity,

--the fact that they completely ignore the possibility of natural causes
--the fact that they rely on temperature proxies the can't possibly be sufficiently precise to make the assertions about the last 150 years they make, AGW proponent Martin Tingley, an expert in climate statistics at Harvard, was forced to admit that proxies “carry significant uncertainties.”
--the fact that they diddled the US temperature data--lowering temperature data obtained before the year 2000 and raising temps after, turning an apparently stable or mild cooling trend into a warming trend. The hottest year for the US was 1934, not 1998. To be fair, the AGW folks claim that 1998 was still the hottest year by far, globally. However, one must wonder how many other mistakes have been made in assembling the data.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Interestingly, the algorithm used to "correct" the post 2000 data was written by James Hansen, who has been caught diddling temperature data before ("making a minor error," LOL!!!). For example, in October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced "Oops, never mind, I was wrong." He only admitted the mistake after he was "outed" by other scientists.

--GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic. It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers
--Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993.
--In spite of the dire predictions and claims that the sea-levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 20 feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet), Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). There has been no rise since 2006 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/05/13/NASA-Gets-Caught-Faking-Climate-Change-Data-AGAIN
--global average temperature is an estimate. Due to the disparity in locations, the presence or absence of heat islands (NYC, e.g.), and other anomalous variations, the calculation of global average temperature is far from straight forward and requires those doing so to make assumptions about how those various anomalies are inculcated into the calculations.
--claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/


My real problem with AGW remains as it has always been. You've got a bunch of scientists running around attempting to prove their pet hypothesis correct rather than testing the hypothesis to see if it fails. Every time they are confronted with a shortcoming in their assertions, rather than attempting to determine whether or not the "denier" is correct or is possibly onto something, they come out with some explanation that stretches credulity.

Examples:
--Tree ring divergence is due to "global darkening," except that "global darkening" isn't really occurring.
--Temperatures haven't risen in over 17 years and the response is either "that's too short a period to be important" (they began saying that at 10 years), or "the warming is occurring beneath the surface of the oceans.
--Stratospheric data do not match predicted AGW numbers http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

In the end there are too many uncertainties in their techniques, their assumptions (the grossest one of all is their automatic assumption that observe climate changes could not possibly have been due to natural causes and the commensurate decision not to research that possibility.

There are clues to how vulnerable the AGW crowd feel about these very real problems, the stridency with which they denounce "deniers" and "skeptics," their refusal to debate skeptic scientists in public forums, the name calling and attempts to silence critics, the claims that "the science is settled," and "the debate is over," even as more and more questions arise about the quality of their data and the assumptions being made over it. The fact that the initial claims that most scientists support the IPCC" with the failure to mention that of the thousands of questionnaires sent out, only 17% bothered to respond and from that small sampling, they made their sweeping assertions.

The number of half-truths, weasel words, efforts to conceal errant data, the seeming disconnect between all the dire predictions and what has actually occurred. All of this must surely throw the entire mess into serious doubt.

Really am quits this time folks, I don't have the time to do your research for you (a paraphrasing of a famous William F. Buckley quote when he was asked to provide documentation) 😀

I've wasted far too much time responding and making my own assertions.

Belief is a choice and until I see something more compelling than the hyperbolic warnings, dire predictions of doom, questionable data sets, questionable models, failure to research natural causes (one would think that would be the first place to look, not the last), half-truths and outright lies, I will fight to prevent the waste of taxpayer money in pursuit of this chimera and I will fight to prevent the imposition of onerous, job-killing regulations imposed in the vain attempt to control the earths climate.

 

[catswold]

Items to consider.

Part of the problem is associated with the old adage, "A lie travels half-way around the world before the truth gets his pants on." When AGW first appeared in the public conscience, it did so with a huge splash and fanfare. The MSM uncritically accepted the words of academic scientists and high profile politicians, like Al Gore who attached themselves to it. Gore used his reputation as former VP to promote his film about it. Everyone was primed to believe it, because it came from "academia" and former VP Gore, who staked his reputation on it (I have no doubt as to the sincerity of Gore's belief--at least in the beginning, now I'm not so certain he isn't more motivated by money). I believed it in the beginning.

Problem is, as I began to look into it, I kept running into logical non-sequiturs and questionable assertions and assumptions. The more I researched it, the more it looked like scientist involved were (as I said before) attempting to prove their hypothesis rather than attempting to punch holes in it. In the "scientific method,' a scientist comes up with a hypothesis and then "tests" it, sets about attempting to find the flaws in it, to disprove it rather than prove the validity of it.

Another worry is the rapidity with which "skeptics" lose their jobs if they dare to speak their doubts. Not only that, but usually, they are also denigrated and demonized by their former colleagues. These are not the actions of people interested in the truth, these are the actions of people desperate to prevent any dissension within the ranks. What need the truth to fear when a few isolated voices speak out, unless there's some truth to their criticisms?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/

http://www.theclimategatebook.com/scientist-fired-for-becoming-climate-change-skeptic/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/david_bellamy_obe__global_warming_victim_.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061614-704895-caleb-rossiter-fired-for-climate-views.htm

--------------------------------

Some of the high profile skeptics:
--Freeman Dyson (professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society)
--Bjorn Lomborg
--Will Happer
--Michael Crichton
--Alan Carlin
--Ian Plimer
--Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
--Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
--Dr. Richard Lindzen (retired Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences)
--John Coleman (co-founder of the Weather Channel) 'When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.

'The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.''

Wiki has a list of some of the better known "skeptics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

-----------------------------------------

Also, as I've mentioned before, the level of vitriol and demonization of anyone who expressed doubt is also a clear warning flag--demonization is a manifestation of fear and self-doubt, of the inability to muster a truly compelling argument in support of one's beliefs. It is not a sign of absolute confidence, of certainty.

--Mr. Obama likened those who deny climate change to people who would have told John F. Kennedy, at the dawn of the space program, that the moon “was made of cheese.”
--Gore compared "deniers" to 1960s racists, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/31/gores-plan-demonize-catastrophic-climate-change-sk/
--Gavin Schmidt, NASA scientist said "Their claim that debate is being stifled has the same credibility as members of the Flat Earth Society complaining about the round Earth mafia."
--Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change compared Danish skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's?
--Ellen Goodman wrote that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers
--Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center-- contrarians "who choose to mislead the public" on what science says about climate change cannot expect to escape being chastised.
--E.O. Wilson described "contrarians like Lomborg" as "the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval."

Lastly there is a perfect example in johnsonma's warning about Roy Spencer. I suspect, though only he could confirm it, that he did not do a search on Roy Spencer to see if he had responded to his critics, he merely assumed that the critics were correct.

The article appears in a liberal rag, ThinkProgress.org, it cites a few quotes from AGW/CC proponents, and one extensive email from Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. Tell me, are Dressler's credentials any more compelling than Spencer's, or is it that Dressler's comments reaffirm what the author at ThinkProgress already assumed to be true?

When we read articles UNCRITICALLY, we run the risk of being mislead. Most of the time, when I read an article making assertions of the sort that the AGW controversy generates, I try to read the original article, then I search for an opposing view or response.

You can't make a valid decision unless you read the opinions and assertions of both sides critically and filled with skepticism--OOPS! There's that dirty word again.D)

Now, definitely finished with this.

 

[chunkymonster]

Items to consider.

Part of the problem is associated with the old adage, "A lie travels half-way around the world before the truth gets his pants on." When AGW first appeared in the public conscience, it did so with a huge splash and fanfare. The MSM uncritically accepted the words of academic scientists and high profile politicians, like Al Gore who attached themselves to it. Gore used his reputation as former VP to promote his film about it. Everyone was primed to believe it, because it came from "academia" and former VP Gore, who staked his reputation on it (I have no doubt as to the sincerity of Gore's belief--at least in the beginning, now I'm not so certain he isn't more motivated by money). I believed it in the beginning.

Problem is, as I began to look into it, I kept running into logical non-sequiturs and questionable assertions and assumptions. The more I researched it, the more it looked like scientist involved were (as I said before) attempting to prove their hypothesis rather than attempting to punch holes in it. In the "scientific method,' a scientist comes up with a hypothesis and then "tests" it, sets about attempting to find the flaws in it, to disprove it rather than prove the validity of it.

I've been reading your posts with great interest. Thank you for adding to this thread!