After repeatedly publishing his misinformation, Wash. Post gives Will space to brag about global warming poll
After repeatedly publishing and failing to correct George Will's false and misleading claims about global warming, The Washington Post published Will's November 8 column bragging that "a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years." Will has previously misrepresented sea ice data and forwarded other global warming misinformation in the pages of the Post.
In Wash. Post, Will celebrates Pew finding that fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming
Will: Pew poll finds "57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years." From Will's November 8 Washington Post column:
Although the political and media drumbeat of alarm is incessant, a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. Two reasons are:
They are worried about their wages, which will not be improved by clobbering a weak economy with the costs of a cap-and-trade carbon-reduction regime. And climate doomsayers are learning the wages of crying "Wolf!"
In 2005, global warming worriers warned, as they tend to do after all adverse or anomalous environmental events, that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming and foreshadowed an increase in the number and destructiveness of hurricanes. As this year's Atlantic hurricane season ends, only three hurricanes have formed -- half the average of the past 50 years -- and none has hit the United States. [11/8/09]
Wash. Post has repeatedly allowed Will to forward global warming misinformation
Will claimed "evidence" of climate change is "elusive." In an October 1 Washington Post column, Will claimed that "evidence" of climate change is "elusive" and that scientists are overstating the threat of warming when they say -- in the words of a September 21 New York Times article Will criticized -- that a recent "plateau" in temperatures has "no bearing" on the long-term warming trend. In fact, scientists routinely present strong evidence of long-term warming and its consequences -- including a September 2009 United Nations report Will himself cited that says "rapid environmental change is underway with the pace and the scale of climate change accelerating." [10/1/09]
Will falsely cited U.N. in criticizing "cataclysmic warning" that planet will warm 6.3 degrees. In the same October 1 Post column, while criticizing "[w]arnings about cataclysmic warming," Will asserted, "A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions" [italics in original]. In fact -- as the September 25 Washington Post article Will linked to makes clear -- a coalition of researchers in the United States, including the Sustainability Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ventana Systems, and Robert Corell, who the article stated "chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings," established that figure, not the U.N. [10/1/09]
Will misused sea ice data in February 15 column. In his February 15 Washington Post column, Will suggested that Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) data on Arctic sea ice undermine the case for the existence of "man-made global warming." In response, the ACRC reportedly stated:
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.
Doubling down, Will misused sea ice data again. In a February 27 column, Will falsely claimed that in his February 15 column, he "accurately reported" on the contents of an ACRC document. In fact, the document he cited rebutted the very argument he was making: The ACRC document that Will relied on actually stated that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models. In the words of TPM Muckraker's Zachary Roth, Will's February 27 column "amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother." On April 6, NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released new data on Arctic sea ice levels that further discredited Will's statements. [2/27/09]
Will criticized for "misrepresentation of the data" after distorting World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) statistics about global temperatures. Will wrote in his April 2 column that "[r]educing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the WMO, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998." Will presented the WMO data as evidence that global warming may not be occurring despite the fact that WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud criticized him for similarly writing in his February 15 column that according to the organization, "there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." Jarraud called Will's February 15 assertion "a misrepresentation of the data and of scientific knowledge." [4/2/09]
Will columns criticized by Post colleagues. Will's global warming columns have also recently been criticized by Washington Post editorial board member and cartoonist Tom Toles, Post weather columnist Andrew Freedman, and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander. His fellow editorial columnist Eugene Robinson also said that Will "cross[ed] the line" in spreading global warming misinformation.
Post editorial page editor defended Will
Post has not corrected any of these columns. Despite the criticism of the Post ombudsman and other Post colleagues, as of November 9, Will's February 15, February 27, April 2, and October 1 columns do not contain any corrections, clarifications, or notes addressing the misinformation he has spread.
Indeed, Post editorial page editor reportedly defended Will's January column on sea ice data. The Columbia Journalism Review posted a piece on February 26 featuring quotes from Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defending Will's February 15 column:
"If you want to start telling me that columnists can't make inferences which you disagree with -- and, you know, they want to run a campaign online to pressure newspapers into suppressing minority views on this subject-I think that's really inappropriate. It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him." [2/26/09]
It's even more shameful that George Will, a guy who has some credibility on a variety of topics, gets the influence he has on this topic. He shouldn't have a national platform to spew nonsense about this - there's been plenty of information provided by MMFA and others that he's not a reliable resource for factual information about GCC.
That's because a skeptic turns to science to settle what's true and whats not.
And the scientific evidence supports, overwhelmingly, that hyposthesis. And no alternative hypothesis has failed to either be taken into account or to be debunked by the available evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're wrong. And no b*llsh!t polls will change what can be observed and measured in the physical world, any more than the Bible or the RNC or Oil Industry can. All they CAN do is misinform.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky for your lot.
People like you should lose all credibility and shouldn't have a place at the table to spread your nonsense, that's correct. You can choose to stop attempting to spread that nonsense or not, just like FoxNews can choose to stop spreading lies and disinformation. If you don't choose to stop, then you should be denied credibility and influence.
That's all I've ever said, but keep spreading untrue rumors about me. I contribute enough here on many subjects that people know that I don't wish for offensive posters to "disappear", regardless of your quotations. I am sure you're cropping a quote and taking it out of context, knowing how dishonest you are in your posting history.
The pathetic, close-minded, fanatical and unenlightened person in this discussion is you.
He wishes he had anyone's number. He wishes he had a brain that could come up with indenpendent thoughts and could reason properly. He's frustrated, as you are, by my superior debating skills, and so he goes after me personally when I debunk him, just like you go after others personally when they back you into a corner. It's all entertainment for us. It's your side that whines and cries about it.
I harp on the issue because you are exhibiting a pathetic character trait that is a personal pet peeve: an inability to own up to an obvious mistake. The attempted character assassination no problem and to be expected, but your failure to own up, well, I guess I gave you the benefit of the heavy doubt and thought you might actually do just that. Should have known better given your "posting history."
So you can spin away all that you'd like. In fact, please do continue to do so. I doubt it's winning you many suitors.
All it would show anyone is that you are looney!
I didn't make an "obvious mistake". That would be you who assumed that I had a death wish for you when I was simply using hyperbole, exaggeration for effect, to suggest a fitting death for a GCC denier would be to drown in rising sea levels.
This is not rocket science. And you can continue to make yourself look like a pathetic troll on a mission to push an invalid and vitriolic personal attack on me if you'd like.
You're only hurting your own credibility with that line of attack, and you're making many of us laugh at your foolishness, but keep it up if you must.
And considering that you are the one, as I described above, who keeps getting debunked big time (do a search for Larry E's posts on GCC to see some bigtime smackdowns of this fool Galileonardo), you have some nerve suggesting that it's me who's got ann unreasonably high sense of your own self-worth and an ego much larger than your stature would support.
I think if anything your vociferous and rabid attacks help my case because people nakedly see your intolerance for any level of debate on display.
I provided the link several times in this thread to your hero Larry's thread. It's the same thread you made your self-contradictory "hyperbole is not a joke" reference. I do hope people will read it, especially given what is going on right now with Copenhagen, Mann, Briffa, etc.
Spin away Dr. Dell.
Again, to counter your spelling czar ways, you confused the word "ann" and "an" unless you meant you got a woman named "ann unreasonably high." Lay off the nitrous guys.
Playing the "blame card" - Tommy Talking Point #64
Calling global climate change deniers out on their lies/mis-information does not equal blaming them.
Your mental prism is warped.
And the second link? To some more nonsense from Stephen McIntyre, a thoroughly discredited wannabe.
And this is the best you have?
Because one would think that you were going to provide only two links, you'd provide your best evidence - this mudslinging you did here isn't worth the time it took you to type the 3 sentences! It's incredibly telling about you, the pathetic, unenlightened, close-minded fanatic that you are.
And please do put more faith in Briffa. It shows you don't know what's going on with Yamal. Give this another read and you'll realize that story is yet to run its full course. And please also note that Briffa and Science had refused to release the raw data. Now we know why. The "robust" claims are looking pretty darn weak.
Now go finish that voodoo doll. I don't plan on drowning myself any time soon, so maybe you can have a more direct hand in my demise.
You had one sentence that was one link. I assumed incorrectly that the other sentence was also one link.
But not sure why you wanted this - you are such a freakin' glutton for punishment, you must be really ignorant. I sure don't need to wish for you to die - you're likely too stupid to keep from killing yourself one way or another, I swear.
So, you want to bring up tree rings and McKitrick? What a crazy guy you are. They GCC deniers objections have been thoroughly debunked.
So, it's okay for him to blame the truthtellers, but it's not okay for us to blame those who distort the available evidence and end up misleading people.
The guy is not a climate scientist. He has a degree in mathematics. He never worked in any climate science role.
And your personal actions, or lack of same, don't give you any credibility on this topic, so it doesn't matter how good of a steward of the environment you are. You're still a liar who presents false information, gets totally debunked, then comes back to the next GCC posting by MMFA pretending that you were victorious in your previous foray here.
What was that you said? The IPCC, Mann, and Briffa, et al should have no influence on this debate so long as they continue to push the debunked hockey stick nonsense? Finally something we can agree upon.
McIntyre is not a climate scientist, but he has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC (initially without invitation and subsequently with), so your claim that he has never worked in any climate science role is yet again false. Since you often claim it, please provide us some link to McIntyre being "thoroughly discredited." I would venture to say that your little old mathematician has had more influence over climate science over the last five years than any climate scientist. If you disagree, please name one.
And since you often lie about him not ever being peer reviewed, I guess this is fake. And this too. And this presentation to the National Academy of Sciences never happened either. All just part of the denier anti-AGW conspiracy.
Given what has gone on in the field as of late due to his investigations, don't be surprised when he and McKitrick publish again soon, but that will be fake too.
Since you throw around accusations willy nilly, please also point me to where I am "pretending that [I was] victorious" on MMfA. I think I know better than that given the general tenor here, but since you are always right, why argue? I would rather let people read our posts and make up their own minds and do their own independent investigations rather than claim victory as you so often do (usually after you have been thoroughly thrashed).
And yea, he doesn't have one piece of peer-reviewed climate science work - because he's not a climate scientist. He can't do the work. He can't have it reviewed by his peers, because his peers aren't climate scientists either! This is not rocket science.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard that before - let people hear both sides and come to conclusions - the old "he said, she said" stuff, but that's one of the things that poisons our national debate right now - way too much of people spewing nonsense (you and your GCC denier ilk) and people stating facts and settled science (my side) getting equal time without an intermediary making any kinds of judgements. No thanks. We've had enough of that toxic behavior.
And I guess Geophysical Research Letters is his own personal diary. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, I've heard that before too (negating looking into the full spectrum of info. out there). Can be summed up in the phrase I often reference: "Nothing to see here."
Hypothesis: a mere assumption or guess.
/hipothisiss/
• noun (pl. hypotheses /hipothiseez/) 1 a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. 2 Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning.
— ORIGIN Greek hupothesis ‘foundation’.
Supposition being a synonym for "assumption," I'd say EZ4you2say gave a fairly accurate -- if biased by that term "mere" -- definition. A hypothesis is an assumption used as a foundation for further investigation.
That said, global warming isn't a hypothesis. The planet's average temperature is rising, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising and species are migrating into areas previously too inhospitable to them. That global warming is anthropogenic was a hypothesis about 15 years ago, but I think it's reached a level of consensus in the scientific community. Now it's a theory....
And the discussion is about a scientific hypothesis.
Scientific hypotheses are not mere assumptions, or guesses.
Some hypotheses are simply guesses. Not scientific hypotheses.
There's a difference between an educated guess and a guess.
If you don't like the label, change your pattern, and you'll lose it! It's all under your control.
And, for god's sake, stop throwing around the term "strawman." A straw man fallacy refers to the manipulative restatement of the opposing argument. I haven't restated your argument. I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than to call people names and thrash about wildly whenever you're challenged. I honestly haven't seen you substantively add to any debate on any thread on any topic on this site. You don't argue, you shout down opposing viewpoints.
You said that I was big on slapping down people who disagree with me.
I don't. Never have, and never will.
If I did behave that way, you'd have a point. I don't behave that way. So it's a strawman argument, that I do something wrong.
And who's "we"? That'd be the multiple posters here and on multiple othe sites of all kinds who get accused of attacking other posters because they disagree with them. I don't know how you missed that, but you sure did. And how like you to make the same totally flawed argument again, that I made a single argument based upon a difference of opinion!
And for you to allege that I don't argue is ludicrous. I beat down faulty arguments with facts all the time. Again, I don't know how you could have missed that - I suspect that your personal prejudices are coloring your view here.
And here's a step by step explanation about your strawman argument.
1. Topic A is under discussion.
In this case, that would be my assertion that you're acting like a concern troll because of the way you're discussing what the definition of a hypothesis is when it relates to science and the way you're failing to keep that starting point in context.
2. Topic B is introduced under guise of being equivalent to topic A. Topic B is usually a distorted version of A. An example of that would be misrepresenting the opponent's position and refuting the misrepresentation, giving the appearance that it was the opponent's position which has been refuted.
That would be you saying that I am slapping a label on someone simply because they disagreed with me. I never did that though.
Now, for some reason, this doesn't surprise me.
But it does you?
You think that facts should change and defenses to false talking points should change? Really?
Here I did it for you;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
But of course you didn't inform any readers of your selectively choosing the last option for the definition, or your avoidance of the first definition, or the second or the third, all of which are much more emphatic about the 'educated' part of the 'guess'. The scientific hypothesis that Eddie was talking about wasn't a simple guess or a mere assumption, was it? Nope. It's backed up by lots of research.
But you didn't give the definition that fit the usage, did you?
I jokingly said that I hope that you drown when the sea levels increase, since you are denying that Global Climate Change is happening.
I do hope that those people who deny GCC suffer the most consequences of GCC when it does happen, but that's not going to happen - the people who will suffer will be the weakest in our world, the poorest of the poor who can't easily move or adapt to climate changes.
And you couldn't even figure that out. I guess it shouldn't surprise us, since you still keep thinking that linking to anything Stephen McIntyre has ever written about GCC is a valid resource! You're pretty lame, but even I would have thought that you could figure out hyperbole. I guess I overestimated the limited intelligence I gave you credit for.
So, please, keep bringing up this 'threat' from me. I'd be happy to let people know that you couldn't even figure out what I was saying or why, and you couldn't even recognize hyperbole when it was right in front of you. Please, let me make fun of you whenever I can. I find it really entertaining!
It's only a matter of time before you get banned again, I will miss you Sue.
It was hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect. How many times do you need to hear this before you get it through your thick skull?
"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"
Spin away Delly. Spin away. I find it really entertaining.
I'll make my request once more regarding McIntyre. Please provide us some link to McIntyre being "thoroughly discredited" so that people can decide for themselves whether or not your claims are credible. Or is this yet another case of all spin, no bite?
Someone else claimed what they said was a joke. I didn't claim that what I said was a joke. I said that I wrote in hyperbole jokingly. That's not the same thing. Do you really not understand that saying something jokingly is not the same as claiming that something that someone said wasn't a joke, and was hyperbole instead? Hyperbole is jokingly saying something, exaggerating for effect. Man, you are incredibly dense, aren't you? And clearly part of a cabal with the looking up of a previous post of mine to unearth that - too bad it doesn't come close to proving what you hoped it proved! You are so lame it's really sort of sad.
Why are you bringing up a thing I said before that shows how consistent I am? Shouldn't you only bring stuff up that shows me being inconsistent? (except that you couldn't find that evidence, since I am consistent!)
And all you (and we know that you really don't want the info - you are being insincere in your request for info) or anyone else need do if they really wanted to verify if Stephen McIntyre has truly been intensely and thoroughly debunked as a credible source on climate change is go to Google and search for "climate change denier Stephen McIntyre", and look at some of the about 250,000 hits that come up.
It was easy to find that post by the way--it's the same one that you keep telling people to go look up with your hero Larry, the same one I linked to a number of times.
So you couldn't provide the link debunking McIntyre? You would think by now the AGW cult would have set up a site that tears him asunder for your worship.
That really is the issue here and why public confidence in the AGW scripture continues to wane (another thing I predicted would happen--next will be the unfortunate increase in public skepticism toward the environmental movement as a whole).
None within your cult can even remotely acknowledge the problems with the theory, so when fanatics such as yourself claim "the scientific evidence supports, overwhelmingly, [AGW]" and try to screech that "the debate is over," you have nobody but yourselves to blame for the resulting lack of support.
When people reads things like this and this and this and this and this and this and this (and I could go on for hours with more examples), their faith in your religion withers.
Best of luck propping up your dead theory. At this point, it's starting to look like A Weekend at Bernie's around here. Some advice. Dump your stock in Big Al's Carbon Offset Wholesale Warehouse.
People like you and your ilk who deny the undeniable, who ignore the consensus conclusions by climate scientists and instead rely upon people like Stephen McIntyre, a thoroughly discredited guy who spews nonsense about GCC on his blog (no peer-reviewed articles at all that refute any climate science) - you're the people who, if the world were fair, would suffer the most when your denial of reality came back to haunt the world.
"While admittedly incomplete and highly approximate general circulation models of the atmosphere predict that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air's CO2 content will raise mean global air temperature a few degrees Celsius, natural experiments based upon real-world observations suggest that a global warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree could result from such a CO2 increase."
"In a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change."
"We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records."
"The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible."
"But it seems self-evident to us that, recognizing the limited due diligence of paleoclimate journal peer review, it would have been prudent for someone to have actually checked MBH98 data and methods against original data before adopting MBH98 results in the main IPCC promotional graphics."
"These studies are hardly 'independent'. If all the authors in the multiproxy articles are listed, one sees much overlapping. Mann himself was a co-author of two supposedly 'independent' studies; his sometime co-author (as well as Bradley's sometime co-author) Jones was co-author of two of the others. Even Crowley and Lowery [2000], where there is no apparent overlap, stated that they used data supplied by Jones. This hardly amounts to 'independence' in any conventional use of the term."
You don't have work from climate scientists upon which to hang your hat.
McIntyre has been thoroughly debunked and discredited as an authority on climate science and GCC. Look it up.
Spin away Dr. Dell.
Just what is an "elitist liberal"?
And how is that different from "common folk"?
Hey! Are you elitist? I never would have guessed! ;-)
If the shoe fits...
... then by all means, go ahead and wear it!
I made the mistake of not providing the link that first time but there it is above for all to see (do a search on the phrase "drown yourself"). Pathetic and a perfect illustration of the most rabid of the anti-science AGW cultists. I will continue to do this until she offers an apology for her disgusting behavior and poor judgment as most normal people would.
By the way Delly, I noticed no follow-up from you when I did post the link to your abhorrence in three separate replies. The thread didn't close for another day (her favorite excuse when cornered is "the thread closed"). Why the crickets yet again? I'll answer that for you. Because you were yet again exposed for your fanatical obfuscation.
Now that that is out of the way, let's get to the meat of the matter. Delly, if you had been able to tear yourself away from your Gore shrine, you would have noticed that I had another prophetic moment in my last reply to you when I brought up "what is currently going on with the science in regards to Briffa, Mann, D'Arrigo, Kaufman, Esper, Korhola, PNAS, etc." and added that it "[l]ooks like there's a lot of trouble on the horizon for the AGW cult."
The latest big chip in the faltering AGW house of cards comes out of Finland and mentions many of the characters I mentioned in that post. It is the transcript of a soon-to-air broadcast from the Finnish Broadcasting Company, YLE, the more robust equivalent of America's PBS. To put it lightly, it is damning in its condemnation of the AGW cornerstones and the sorry current state of climate science, and this from a source that could hardly be argued to have a right-wing bias.
Delly will predictably spit venom in reply to this and tell me I should be ashamed of myself and cry "nothing to see here," but that's nothing new. This will especially be the case when she sees that Steve McIntyre is interviewed who she claims "doesn't have a leg to stand on" despite the fact that his work has forced updates to NASA GISS data, corrigenda to papers by some of the aforementioned climate scientists, and changes in proxy-use recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences.
Delly rarely strays from the script(ure) and thus rarely adds anything new or insightful to the conversation. Unfortunately for her, the AGW Gospel according to Delly and many other believers here is sheer fantasy and it continues to fracture at all of its weakly-constructed seams.
So I invite those of you who are among the AGW faithful but are not yet irretrievable to read the transcript and then independently investigate the claims within. While "The Team" as McIntyre calls the likes of Mann and Schmidt and Hansen continue to poke their fingers into the holes in the AGW dike, other holes open. Unfortunately for them, they are running out of fingers fast.
The problem here? This fool can't even understand hyperbole.
He can't even understand that if he and his ilk are responsible in any way for delaying action by the world (not by him in his personal life, which is irrelevant), they should be the ones who suffer the consequences first and foremost, if the world were a fair place.
The person enthralled with "sheer fantasy" is the poster above.
Larry E did a great job on a couple of previous posts debunking every single thing this guy ever brought up! He demolished his argument, piece by piece.
Stephen McIntyre did notice some minor mathematical errors and data mistakes in a couple of papers. Those corrections were made, and the conclusions remained exactly the same. The corrections didn't negate any findings, so again, Stephen McIntyre doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to GCC. The fact that he found some minor mistakes that were corrected when they were pointed out only shows us that the people who did the papers were willing to correct any errors! It doesn't make McIntyre more credible when it comes to discussing the conclusions those papers, and many others, have come to - but the poster above doesn't understand this apparently. He doesn't get that being able to recognize data errors doesn't make one capable of evaluating that data! They are two totally different things.
So above is one of your first attempts of many seeking cover for your fanaticism. First it was the lies that you never said it. Now that that has been exposed as fraudulent, you turn to your hyperbole defense. And then below in one of your rants you say:
"Thanks for showing all of us that you can't even understand HYPERBOLE. I jokingly said that I hope that you drown when the sea levels increase, since you are denying that Global Climate Change is happening."
Having glommed onto this as your way out, you repeat this defense numerous times throughout the thread.
I know its hard for you to keep track of all the venom you spew, but let me refresh your memory as to why that defense is funny yet sad. In your often cited thread about Larry (can you say hero worship?) you say the following in response to something that I said was just a joke (this is an exact quote):
"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"
On a side note, since you point out somebody's misspelling of "your" below in a snotty manner, I'll point out that that is not how to spell facetious. Back to the point.
I notice you didn't link to the thread this time despite yet again bringing up the work of your hero Larry in that same thread. Perhaps you were worried that little hyperbole nugget might destroy your attempted distraction. Well, here it is for reference in case anyone cares to read it. So which is it Delly? Is it hyperbole or a joke or is there now no difference as your new-and-improved statements seem to suggest?
I contend it was neither. It was your actual AGW-hazed venom. Rather than admit to your poor judgment and your absolute hatred of AGW skeptics, you now spin some transparent hyperbolic ruse. Nice try, or many tries I should say.
As for Larry's debunking, I invite folks to read through that thread and make their call rather than take your cultist word (and I'm still waiting for you to direct me to the further debunking he had "at the ready"). As I asked in the more recent Gore/hurricane thread where you yet again rub your Larry idol for inspiration, why hasn't he chimed in about what has happened in climate science and with Copenhagen over the last month?
Like it or not, your theory has been taking some serious knocks as of late (to add to previous beatings) and that leads me to McIntyre since he has been doing much of the beating. You can try to yet again spin/minimize McIntyre's work by saying he found "minor mistakes" but that is yet again sheer fantasy. The "minor mistakes" are in fact huge errors that even to this day have still not been fully addressed.
Add to that the scarcity of independent data and the total lack of data transparency in the field of climate science (but inherent in most sciences for the purposes of replication) that Steve often cites but you ignore, and it is no wonder you have drawn the false conclusion that "the conclusions remained exactly the same." Your precious hockey stick, the principal backbone of this whole AGW movement, will continue to be whittled away until it collapses under its own weight.
Aside from the predictability of your response (yet another prophecy I made that came to pass--no big feat since you are so predictable--you even used "doesn't have a leg to stand on"), if McIntyre can so readily be discounted, why was he invited as an IPCC reviewer? Why did the NAS choose to change its recommendations regarding tree-ring proxies in response to his work? And why are so many of these climate scientists afraid to share their data with him if he's just some lowly mathematician?
Your claim that "the people who did the papers were willing to correct any errors" proves your blood is Kool Aid. I concede some of the scientists do correct themselves after repeated prodding, i.e. Kaufman, but others fight tooth and nail to avoid addressing his findings and it has taken years for him to get his hands on some of the raw data (with plenty yet to be delivered). The newest Briffa shoe is yet to fully drop, Mann calls McIntyre's claim he used upside-down Tiljander proxies "bizarre" (the same conceded issue that prompted the Kaufman corrigendum), and if you read the transcript of the Finnish show, you would find the anti-science statement from CRU Director Phil Jones:
"[W]hy should I send the data to you when your only objective is to find anything wrong with it?"
If you want to hang your hat on this bunch, good luck to you. Why by the way no mention of Lindzen's segment in that Finnish thread? Korhola? Were you too angry to read it in full? Maybe you can give his ERBE paper a read after you get off your MMfA shift.
And in an attempt to show that you're really dense, you attack my 'spelling' error when it's clearly a mistyping error, and not a spelling error. I've spelled facetious many times, and when I spelled it facetitious one time, it was simply a time when I typed "ti" twice. Facetitious doesn't even make sense. When I corrected someone who spelled "your" or "you're" wrong, that was a clear spelling error that's very common.
Go to Larry's website if you want to see more. I believe he provided several links there.
Sheer lunacy coming from you. Every time you've posted, you've had your butt handed to you, yet you believe that you can come back and do it all over again on each new thread.
I "attacked" your spelling error because I had seen you doing it to others in an especially smarmy manner.
Again, I invite people to go back through the threads and judge for themselves. They surely would be better off doing their own independent research and thinking (anathema to you, I know) than to listen to the bitter ramblings of an intolerant AGW cultist like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's peer-reviewed evidence, not cherry-picked evidence!
And WHY do they do this?
Because the moneyed interests that buy their advirtising want them to! The case is made to the only people that SHOULD matter: The SCIENTISTS. That's the only opinon the media need report. But instead they set out to cast doubt by reporting FALSE or UNSIBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, given them by their sponsors, and treating them with equal wieght. (Gee, I wonder why the public is confused!) They also consistently misrepresent the case. So don't give me this BS that the it's the job of scientists to convice the PUBLIC. That's the MEDIA's job. The job of SCIENTISTS is to settle matters of SCIENCE. And they've DONE THIS. The media should report scientific findings as FACT, rtaher tha helping fabricate controversy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about SCIENCE. You're talking about MARKETING.
All you've done is CONFUSED THE IGNORANT!
So, let me get this strait...
"All" we have to do is: stop your lot from lying, and stop your lot from confusing a bunch of people that you've already brainwashed to listen to everything you say, doubt anything anyone else says, and above all use conservtaive ideology to judge scientific evidence.
Great. Fine. For a minute their I thought you were asking me to do something difficult.
This is also exactly why 48% (or whatever) of Americans don't accept the theory of evolution. NOt because it's been SHOT DOWN, but rather that IGNORANT PEOPLE have been given BAD INFORMATION and told that it's a SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERERSY when it's NOT. It's a disgrace. It's an embarrassment. And it is SQUARELY the fault of CONSERVTAIVES.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There's only ONE WAY I can think of to stop you people from lying. And it's not a method that most liberals are naturally inclined towards.
The GWD use a message, not data, to get their point across. Mix that with the fact that most americans have maybe a third grade education about how the global climate works, and it is easy to confuse them.
Weather is complicated, a sound bite isn't. Tommy and the rest are using that to their advantage.
HA! You liberal elitists are so clueless, gotta love you. That is the way you persuade on issues, isn't it? Tell people they are stupid and they need you to lead them to the promised land of liberal ideas. Pandering is second nature to liberals, on nearly every issue they champion, and they can't see it. Oh well.
1/2 of all people in Kentucky don't think Obama's a US citizen. 20% in New Jersey thinks he's the anti-christ. And I betcha a sizable percentage STILL believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and that the WMD's have been found.
It's not pandering. It's not whining. It's not crying. It's not blaming. It's telling the truth.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I don't hate anyone. You think you or any other GCC denier is worth that much of my energy? You're lame and looney.
Which laws have the liberals passed that are "unpopular"? You know, there were elections 2006 and 2008 and Democrats were elected for a reason. Now come along for the ride or get out of the way.
Try again.
Cap and trade has been used to control sulfur dioxide emissions for years.
The universe has not collapsed in on itself yet.
It's never the message, it's always the corruption of that message by stupid conservatives, and the stupid people that listen to them.
That's what the voters said in 2006 and 2008. Who are you to go against the will of the people?
Or it Rush's fault for that too?
Concern & Blame Troll. At the same time. The Daily Double of Dumb.
Or it Rush's fault for that too?
Concern & Blame Troll. At the same time. The Daily Double of Dumb.
Do you really want to know why Democrats are having a hard time even after rolling up historic victories last year, in every branch of government? Because after Bush's disastrous 8 years of practically dismantling the entire Republican party, the people were done with him and the Republicans, and rightly so. So they voted for Democrats big time.
But once Democrats have to actually govern and persuade the public on real legislation, it's like moving molasses in January. The public naturally resists big, obtrusive wasteful bloated government. They are tired of tax hikes and complaining legislators telling them how broke government is and they need our money, more of it - or else! They don't the government making choices for them that they are quite capable of making themselves. So when Democrats try and sell their messages and ideas, they find resistance, they hit a brick wall - and complain it's Fox News on the other side of that wall holding it up.
When it's the message, and has been all along.
The only "superstitious nonsense" being foisted endlessly upon the public is the pathetically-weak and wholly-political AGW theory you have bought into like a total guppy. That propaganda machine goes from the goliaths in the media at the top down to the schools at the local level at the bottom.
I cringed when my nephew told me he was forced to watch AIT three times in school last year (twice by one history teacher who told students, "You need to watch this so that you know what is really going on in the world."). There were no disclaimers about the politics of AIT. There was no attempt at "balance" as you claim exists. Just straight-up propaganda.
I was at least glad to hear that his biology teacher told students she didn't want to hear another word about global warming (go figure, a scientist).
Deniers keep claiming the "hockey stick" is "broken", so AGW is false.
Even if the "hockey stick" were wrong, there's still much more data to support AGW.
You're stuck on the stick, elitist.
Do you even realize what has happened with that thing since it was published? Issues with improper proxy weighting? Indefensible smoothing algorithms? Use of Graybill bristlecones against NAS recommendations? Upside-down Tiljander?
Never mind that a paper written by the inventor of the hockey stick to prop up the hockey stick is laughable, but this is your Briffa-esque support of the "robustness" of the AGW theory?
The third link uses the IPCC claim that "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" but then fails to provide even one example. What is the new evidence? Briffa? Schmidt? Hansen's GISS? Jones' secret (now missing) CRU data? The Mann of the hour himself? Please do tell.
http://tinyurl.com/7ec3ko
And science isn't a "liberal cause", by the way. It's science.
Depends on how you look at it. If science helps the general population understand how things work, climate change, etc and through this becomes more educated on the issues, then I think science may be a "liberal cause".
You call global warming a liberal cause, meanwhile the entire scientific community is almost unanimously ringing alarm bells. The glaciers are melting. The sea levels are rising. The past eight years are all in the top ten hottest years, ever. Weather is getting more extreme, the salinity of the oceans is falling, the jet stream is slowing. You can dismiss Al Gore, and I'm sure you do. But you can't dismiss the tidal wave of observable phenomenon. That's just not reasonable.
Their case has steadily been falling apart ever since Mann's hockey stick was first held up as the AGW "fingerprint" despite many desperate attempts since at propping up that heavily-flawed reconstruction. Rather than listen to skeptics like me or zealots like DellDolly, do some research yourself into the actual science and draw your own conclusions.
As for the scientific consensus, you're just a little bit more than a little bit disingenuous. Every single national science academy on the planet has endorsed the anthropogenic global warming theory. No national or international scientific body has dissented. The most famous "dissent" is from the Heartland Institute, which was found to have attributed statements to scientists that weren't even aware of the paper. This has been the constant characteristic of global warming deniers, almost all of whom are funded by industry groups with vested interests in keeping the status quo.
Based on past posts by these deniers, they are not interested in consensus or science.
They have a political agenda. So, there is no reasoning with them.
They are just trying to make your life miserable. But it is they who are miserable, because they know the consensus and world leaders are not on their side.
And anyone who wants to argue with me can't make me miserable. It's the whole reason I visit this site....
You guys do your best to discount any issues with AGW and, as per usual, terms like "political agenda" and "funded by industry groups" and "lunatic fringe" and "Energy Lobby" rear their ugly heads in your responses, the "black helicopter" conspiracy defense SLUR is so fond of. But whether or not you care to believe it, the theory has some very real issues (it is actually quite a rare occasion that I have seen any AGW believer concede there are problems with the theory).
Bob, you mention the national science academy endorsements, but you fail to mention what exactly they are endorsing: the same small group of climate scientists who claim to have found "robust" AGW fingerprints. Or are you under the impression that each of these academies has done independent research to validate the theory? Well they haven't for the most part. They largely rely instead on the peer-reviewed papers of Mann and Briffa and Jones and Santer et al to issue their statements.
And to call McIntyre "an energy industry shill" is "just a little bit more than a little bit disingenuous" to put it kindly. As I noted in my response to GoreViDolly, McIntyre is not a climate scientist but he has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC and has presented to the NAS. He has been very influential in climate science over the last five years. So I make the same request of you that I did of Delly. Please provide us some link to McIntyre being discredited.
Another thing I mentioned to Delly bears repeating since you too minimize McIntyre's work and claim "Mann's 'hockey stick' graph" is still doing swell. You would be well served to update your knowledge of the "robustness" claim you are repeating in light of what is currently going on and what has happened over the last few years: data mining, the scarcity of independent data, the lack of data transparency, and, when raw data is grudgingly provided, the blaring and highly consequential mistakes being found. Add to that the other issues being found with the bulk of the climate models as is the case in the Lindzen paper I referenced, and I believe you will start to see a pattern emerge: the disintegration of AGW.
Finally, to address your statement, "You start looking into his claims, and you find all the people he cites are lunatic fringe types." Other than your claims about McIntyre, please do elaborate. Was it Kaufman? Briffa? Mann himself? Lindzen? Korhola? Jones? Most of them are in the AGW camp so maybe you're right.
This is meaningless. Anyone can be an IPCC "expert reviewer." There are no qualifications. All you have to do to be listed as an "expert reviewer" is ask to see the draft and agree not to publicly comment on it before release.
And your comments on the Mann hockey stick fail to take into account that there are a LOT of temperature reconstructions from different authors using different proxies. They're all hockey sticks. Here are eleven of them in one graph.
"On August 1, 2005, I was invited by IPCC to act as a reviewer. (I guess this makes me one of the 2500 scientists who support IPCC conclusions, although my review comments have all been ignored as far as I can tell.)"
The message from the IPCC then follows:
"You have been nominated to serve as an Expert Reviewer for the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The first draft of this report will be available for expert review from Friday, 9 September 2005, with all review comments due by Friday, 4 November 2005."
I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know better than to make that up or else he would have been torn up for making the insinuation. So apparently the IPCC felt the need to invite him directly to be an Expert Reviewer, hardly the process you outline even if that might normally be the case. In other words, they specifically enlisted him based on his expertise and history.
I recommend you read through the rest of the thread while you're at it. Good illustration of what goes into the IPCC reports and the processes involved. I especially like that they cite references that have not yet been published/peer-reviewed, yet do not facilitate access to the unpublished data for reviewers to use. That and his October 09 update. Good stuff.
As for the hockey stick link you provide, aside from the fact that that is now a dated graph, wouldn't this link to the same graph have been a better, more transparent choice than the one you shared? At least then people could see who was responsible for the reconstructions.
In case you didn't notice (I'm guessing you did but decided not to mention it), 7 out of 11 of those reconstructions are authored/co-authored by the same bunch I have been talking about throughout this thread (Mann, Briffa, Esper, Jones, CRU). Hardly a good example to show off the "robustness" of the hockey stick and greatly depicts my claims of overlapping proxies and lack of independent data.
And if anyone were to go to the link you provide (don't bother wasting your time), they'd learn that it's simply McIntyre's site, telling his story from his viewpoint - strictly opinion, and him demanding stuff he's told he has not right to demand from the IPCC, and him getting all huffy about it, like he's right, and they're wrong, when the truth is that he's wrong and they're 100% right!!!!!!
He's a whiner, pure and simple. A discredited, loudmouth whiner. And so are you.
Lindzen? He got caught taking $2,500.00 a day from oil companies. He's a contributor to think tanks that are funded by ExxonMobil, including the infamous Heartland Institute that forged the endorsements of their denier manifesto from climate scientists who weren't even aware of the paper. He's the Betsy McCaughey of climate science.
McIntyre? He wasn't ever a "reviewer for the IPCC," at least not anywhere is that stated that I can find (including the IPCC website). However, he, like Lindzen, is tied to an ExxonMobil funded think tank, The George C. Marshall Institute. And, you're right, he's not a climate scientist, he doesn't have the training to analyze the climate science, and he worked in the energy industry for 30 years. His supposed "debunking" of the so called "Mann's Hockey Stick" was spotting a slight calculation error that had an affect on the results from 2000-2006 and a negligible result thereafter. He made hay out of having spotted the calculation error and tried to discredit the entire program, but the rest of the scientific and academic community looked at the data and dismissed his claim. So, yeah, 30 years as an officer in various energy companies and a financial association with ExxonMobil does, in fact, make him an energy industry shill.
You know, I still don't know the science. I have to go with the majority of credible scientists, rather than evaluating climate models and complex mathematical analyses of obscure datapoints. But I write and read for a living, and I know bad research when I see it. You, my friend, rely upon the same small group of personalities and data sets to claim that the majority of scientists are wrong about anthropogenic global warming. Having wasted this morning looking into your assertions, I can now state confidently that you yourself don't know squat about the science. You've soaked up the oil and coal funded mania from the likes of McIntyre and Lindzen with little or no critical thinking to intervene and save you from your folly. Well, I leave you to it. Just having to be you is probably punishment enough.
As someone who reads and writes for a living, and knows "bad research when [you] see it" perhaps you could have actually done some more research before leveling your accusations. To borrow a phrase, I can now state confidently that you yourself don't know squat (intentionally truncated). I suppose it is too late to "save you from your folly" but perhaps next time you won't bring a butter knife to a gunfight.
Had you dug a little bit deeper just within this thread, you would have seen we had already discussed Lindzen's consulting fees (we even discussed that exact decade-plus-old article). It's pretty funny that in my response to Eddie I commended him for not dismissing Lindzen outright "since some folks would automatically do just that despite his involvement with the IPCC." So since you apparently are one of the narrow-minded folk I referenced who automatically dismiss Lindzen, let's dig deeper shall we?
It would seem that Lindzen's known relations with industry didn't preclude him from contributing to the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment and taking a lead authorship role in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (six years after your article was published).
And I guess MIT was all right with keeping him on board despite his "oil and coal funded mania" as you might term it. He's still chugging away as an MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor and has now been with them over a quarter of a century--that after over a decade at Harvard and another decade at a number of institutions (what's that, 45-plus years of experience in the field?).
Add to that about 200 publications (any skeletons on your writing list you care to share with the MMfA audience?); membership in the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council; a host of awards in his field from a number of distinguished institutions; being a named Fellow of the AAAS, the other AAAS, the AGU, and the AMS; and consultation gigs at NASA and JPL (I wonder what he charged them).
Where does that CV leave your hollow and shallow argument? Looking pretty foolish I'd say. But no, according to you, because Lindzen made a total of $10k from "fossil-fuel types" over a decade ago, his life's work can be completely discounted (by the way, he called that article "libelous"). Rather than actually address a single scientific claim Lindzen has made, you choose the predictable but pathetic path and instead attempt to discredit him via his associations.
Same deal with McIntyre, but at least you make a feeble attempt at hitting him on the science. You make the false claim that Mcintyre "wasn't ever a reviewer for the IPCC." I guess you didn't look very hard and weren't able to find this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this...shall I go on? I could for quite a while but I think you get the point. What does that say in the header of each page? Something about "Expert Review Comments" and "IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report" I think.
If you want to keep digging independently (like I suggested you do in my first post to you), please do have at it. Plenty to be found there. You might also be interested in reading the comments from Mann, Schmidt, McKitrick, and others while you're at it. So the IPCC considered McIntyre an expert worthy of invitation despite the "fact" that "he doesn't have the training to analyze the climate science." Should I take your word on it or judge based by the actions of the IPCC?
And I notice you skip right over the reference to his work with the National Academy of Sciences. Nothing to see here I suppose? Why would the NAS bother providing him the venue if he "doesn't have the training?" Further, why would the NAS change its proxy recommendations in light of his conclusions if he was so unqualified. Please give that document a read if you can tear yourself away from Gore's new book. It gives a great history of the Mann stick you still defend and is a good primer for the contemporary issues with Briffa and Mann's subsequent new-and-improved hockey sticks if you care to investigate (the fallout from the now partially-exposed problems with this latest round of "robustness" is yet to fully settle, but let's just say "The Team" has put on their hazmat suits).
To erase any doubt in anyone's mind that you "still don't know the science," I'm pretty sure that in your supposed debunking of McIntyre's "supposed 'debunking' of the so called 'Mann's Hockey Stick," you confuse his stick-smashing work with his little side project exposing issues with Hansen's GISS data. At least that's the only way I can make any sense whatsoever of your "2000-2006" reference. Before you attempt to discredit McIntyre so emphatically from your parrot perch, you could at least show him a bit of respect while you slander him and try to put in a little more effort to understand what actually happened over the last six years. Otherwise, you expose yourself yet again as an AGW "shill." I'll give you credit for at least trying to attack McIntyre in part from the science angle despite your failure to even land a single punch.
The science is what matters in this debate, and there are serious issues with AGW that you and most of the cultists routinely fail to acknowledge. Your post is a good example of why I often call some of the AGW faithful here anti-science Inquisitors, along with an occasional flat-earther reference. You are so quick to pass uninformed judgment "with little or no critical thinking." AGW is religion (officially now in the UK) because what is religion other than blind faith? You have exhibited your AGW blind faith and have stated as much by admittedly surrendering yourself to the scripture without thorough independent investigation. You can have your mirror back now.
I guess you didn't have anything else to add? No concessions? Nothing? Big surprise. I guess I should start calling you BarbaDella since you picked up Delly's playbook.
Yeah, I know what you mean about all those changing terms. Those elitists just like messing with the common folk's heads.
Just in case all you common folk are confused about this, here are a couple of links that describe the difference between "global warming" and "climate change". Don't want to hurt your heads too much.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Climate_Basics.pdf
The FACTS are, even if you left out Mann's original work, the results - based on independent evidence - is the same. The world is getting warmer.
The following quote is from the Union of Concerned Scientists (part of the vast conspiracy of evil scientists!):
"How much does our understanding of global warming depend on the hockey stick graph?
The short answer is 'very little.' The hockey stick graph constitutes only one among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have contributed to the present scientific consensus on the human influence on global warming."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html
Other links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
Never mind that a paper written by the inventor of the hockey stick to prop up the hockey stick is laughable, but this is your Briffa-esque support of the "robustness" of the AGW theory? The third link uses the IPCC claim that "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" but then fails to provide even one example. What is the new evidence? Briffa? Schmidt? Hansen's GISS? Jones' secret (now missing) CRU data? The Mann of the hour himself? Please do tell.
Here's the full story from Anthony Watts. And here is the thread on MMfA where the comedy ensued (SLRTX said, "Notice how the 'discussion' section is re-written to twist it to the utter nonsense of deniers" not realizing that the text was actually written by NOAA--pretty funny). To his credit, he followed up with NOAA and apologized for calling me a liar.
I had to provide the archived link because NOAA was pulling a "nothing to see here" move by taking the page down. It was derived using the Wayback Machine, the pre-eminent internet archive. Here are the now-deleted discussion points again for your enjoyment:
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
Gee... D'ya think the reason fewer people "think there is solid evidence of global warming" is because the media keeps giving the few contrarians and the industry whores equal footing with the wolrd's top-most research scientists doing active research in the field?!?!
Do you know what this poll tells me? It tells me that Fox news is very effective at misinforming people. And as far as I'm concerned that's far more useful as grounds to sue them for damages than it is for any statement regarding SCIENCE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cripes these Conservatives are sofa king stupid.
As for liberals being "better messengers?" If the media weren't controlled by right-leaning corporate boards, that might be possible.
But that's not even the problem here. It has nothing to do with LIBERALS not getting the message through. It has EVERYTHING to do with the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY not having their findings treated with the CREDABILTY that they deserve. It is not the fault of the scientists that the media invent controvesy in order to appease their sponsors.
I'm ALWAYS on the side of SCIENCE. And that includes when it's AGAINST the traditionally liberal position. It's not our fault that those times are relatively uncommon. That's just what happens when you habitually use EVIDENCE to form your POSITION, rather than use a pre-exsisting POSITION (and IDEOLOGY) to judge the EVIDENCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not even WHAT you people think, it's HOW you think!
(A) is victimizing yourself.
(B) is getting on with it.
Sooner or later, wealth redistribution fails when there is no more wealth to redistribute. The former Soviets are laughing at Obama and his czars as they go about repeating the greatest folly of modern times.
And yes, GW Bush started it but Obama is too naive to fix it.
True. Wealth has been redistributed upward to the top 1% of earners for so long that hardly anyone can afford to buy anything anymore. That's not very good for the economy, now is it?
The pendulum is swinging back by a microscopic fraction and these pie-in-the-sky wealthy wanna-be's are crying socialism/communism with the Soviet imagery.
That's disgusting, un-American, and not very Christian.
You couldn't recognize that it would only be fair and proper if GCC deniers were the people who suffered first and foremost from GCC, including rising sea levels.
With your lack of even a modicum of common sense to help you figure out hyperbole, your rants are the ones that should be ignored. No one should 'take' them, even with a full shaker of salt.
"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"
You can't even recognize you are contradicting yourself over and over again (on top of the lies and spin). Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive.
You, on the other hand, have proved yourself to be a liar and a fool on thread after thread after thread on this topic. You're likely a fairly prominent GCC denier yourself who just can't come out and admit which industry-paid shill you are. But if you aren't, and you're simply an ignorant fool, I really feel sorry for you. You're crazy stupid and incredibly dishonest.
Global warming, health care, blah blah blah. It's all about raising taxes.
By the way, now that we've got that particular brand of stupid out of the way, I'd love for you to tell me how "wealth redistribution" started with GW Bush. Progressive taxation has been around since before this country was founded. Bush actually did his damndest to kill it, cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans so deeply that it prompted Warren Buffett to say, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
BZZZZZT! WRONG, Sir, WRONG!
One position is supported by EVIDENCE and one is NOT. And that doesn't change just becuase of what you believe. One position is valid and the other is a convenient ruse. So no, they're not the same.
And as long as the moneyed interests have a desire to see the public misinformed on matters of science in order to maintian their money and power, they will do so. The truth will eventually out, but in the meantime much damage is done. This has been the case for 500 years: note Galileo, Copernucus, etc..., the invention of the telecscope and the debunking of the geocentric model of the universe. At the time the money/power was the CHURCH. Now it's INDUSTRY. And their interests and methods have evolved very little in that time.
And why the hell shouid ANYONE accept a media which consistently puts out false and misleading info?! That's a problem in and of itself, regardless of what political position it's coming from. Why the hell shoudl anyone "get on with it" and just accept that?!
------------------------------------------------------------
That BS by itself should infuriate ANYONE with more than two brain cells to bounce together!
Unless you have some examples from the MAINSTREAM MEDIA to offer?
And the DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOODS that benefit the Con's outnumber those that benefit Libs 10-to-1 on a GOOD day. (Whatever to ZERO on most days.) I've been to Newsbusters (and a few others.) Very rare indeed is the story there that calls out a DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD. All they ever do is whine about BIAS. And half the time I find they've misrepresetned the story, and the otehr half the BIAS is entirely dependant on one's POV. Meaning that it was likely just an objective story, that someone disagreed with. Hardly proof of ANYTHING.
The media DOES NOT lean LEFT. That's an absurd declaration that MMFA and others have beaten to death a thousand times over.
-------------------------------------------------------
No amount of BELIEF on your part can change the FACTS.
We aren't doing anything wrong. It's the GCC deniers that are doing something wrong, who are toxic.
And given George Will's documented pattern of being toxic to the debate, of failing to acknowledge the facts, he shouldn't continue to get more credibility than what he deserves. But the Washington Post is giving him more influence that he should get.
Apparently RIghtOn thinks it's the LIBERALS' fault that the CONSERVATIVES lie. And it's the SCIENTISTS' responsibility to police the MEDIA.
One wonders if he'd be so cavalier if the media really WAS liberally biased and it was the conservtive position that was constantly being misrepresetned, and assailed with false controversy.
---------------------------------------------------------
My only consoluation is that 100 years from you, I will counted among those who were neither taken in by, or part of, the LIE.
And the reason we're complaining about it is the same reason that the White House complained about FoxNews not being a legit news organization.
The only way to combat the nonsense is to call them out for their lack of credibility! It will likely take a long time to gain further footholds, and I don't know if we'll ever totally win the war and get to a time when we don't have to fight against distortions and omissions from the right, but that's not a reason to not try right now.
The only way to fight this fight is to do what we are doing. The only way to make poll results like this change for the better, with a more well-informed populace, is to fight against the misinformation!
So no, concern troll, I don't think taking your advice on this subject is something we should ever, ever, not even for an instant, consider.
I am sorry they sting so much that you have to call me a troll. It's what you do best Suzy, attack when exposed. I know that.
And yeah, you were giving advice as a concern troll would do when you said
"Just keep focusing and complaining about the nonexistent media imbalance against liberals while issue such as this slip away from the public's consciousness. If you think that advances your causes, when polls such as this one directly and absolutely say it does not."
You're just mad that you got caught doing it, and as a result, you're lashing out. Too bad, so sad. Your argument that we should not call out George Will and the Washington Post is the same argument you made that got shot down when you were asserting that the White House shouldn't have called FoxNews out as an illegitimate news organization. That argument didn't hold water then and it still doesn't.
That's all you're doing by continuing the fraudulent personal attacks on me - it's making you look really ignorant.
Please, keep it up. Every time you post this instead of replying to a post with factual information, you show your lack of credibility. Please. The faster you discredit yourself, the better. Thanks for helping us out here.
"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"
What's that about credibility? And what's with the "us" reference? Looking for some help? Sounds desperate and I haven't seen too many people coming to your aid.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
The stories out there are 10-1 in favor of what these scientists say. But because not everyone is a true believer, it's the conservative media's fault?
Gimme a break
That's pretty much their position, in a nutshell. As is every other issue they can't hoodwink the public into swallowing.
But; don't worry yours, and George Wills, shares in Exxon are OK for now so everything is good.
That's not what our side is doing when we're saying our children will pay a price for every moment we delay.
If he can't even do that, can you trust anything else he might say?
Oh, that's right, he doesn't say anything else worth listening too either - he keeps citing people like Stephen McIntyre, who's been discredited over and over again. And no, fool, the fact that McIntyre corrected a couple of data points that didn't change the data enough to effect the conclusions doesn't make him a climate person we should listen to!
"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"
Doh! And didn't I read you whining about "personal attacks" throughout this thread? Here you are with your "fool" reference yet again and I can remember a few "ignorant" and "dum-dum" rants too. Oh, no...must resist...can't. Another mirror moment brought to you by GoreViDolly. What happened to the "shame on you" gem you used to whip out all the time?
To counter your spelling czar nature, you improperly used the word "too."
And it's nowhere near 10-1 in favor of what these scientists say, and even if it were, it should be EVERYTHING-to-NOTHING in favor of "what the scientists say" beacause THAT'S WHO'S JOB IT IS TO FIND THESE THINSG OUT!!!
And YES, any lack of "faith" on the part of the public, any "skeptcism" of science (a contradiction, BTW) IS the MEDIA'S fault, because they give the platform to these charaltans, and put thier propaganda and nonsense on the same level as SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS instead of calling out their inherent conflicts of interest and, in many cases, outright LIES. YES, that IS the media's fault, since it's the media's JOB to report FACTS (those things scientists discover?), and they're not DOING IT.
-------------------------------------------------------------
But you know... You, just like RightOn, keep ignoring the real issue. I'll say it again: My problem is not with WHAT you think, but rather HOW.
As for his theory? Yeah: It's a POSSIBILITY. It's a an interesting theory, and it could explain a lot and add a lot to our understanding of climate systems. But there is not yet enough data to substantiate it, and so far the data we have is explained by, and predicted by, the exsisting models.
Seems to me he agrees with about 90% of what other climate scientists are saying. But you're taking the criticisms/suspicions of i, and extrapolating them to say that "all climate models are wrong." And that's b*llsh!t. They've been too acuurate so far to simply be declared "wrong" based on the data we have.
And this is NOT about being "close minded" or "cult-like." Doctor Lizden was PART of the IPCC. He co-authored their report. His veiws were heard, and taken into consideration. He's not being ignored. And he may be right and he may be wrong, and most likely it's a little of both becasue WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, and we never will. OUr understanding continues to evolve.
But [liberals, on this issue] want to hedge out bets, and lower CO2 emissions just in case and you want to latch onto to a single person's view (which happens to support your agenda) and continue down a path that EVERYONE ELSE says will lead to ruin.
Hey: THEY COULD BE WRONGm, sure. But we risk very little if they are. In the end we'll still have new technology and a more diverse energy supply. Hardly a problem. But if Lizden's wrong, and you use his suspicions to justify staying the course, its effects could cause the deaths of billions, and be impossible to reverse once they come about.
-------------------------------------------------------
The conservtaive, meaning "less far out on a limb," (lowercase 'c') thing to do here would still be to listen to the mainstream opinion of the Scientific community until that starts to shift. And when it does? STILL listen to the mainstream opinion of the Scientific community!
Here's info on Lindzen. He acknowledges AGW, but his beef is with the models and the effects of AGW.
The following 2 quotes are from
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/output/print
"Lindzen is not a complete skeptic. He acknowledges that the earth is getting warmer, and that human activity might have something to do with it."
"Lindzen doesn't think scientists have a very good handle at all on how the earth's atmosphere will respond to increased levels of carbon dioxide."
More info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6595369.stm
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
Here's my problem so far (admittedly not having read the other info.)
"Lindzen doesn't think scientists have a very good handle at all on how the earth's atmosphere will respond to increased levels of carbon dioxide."
See... here's the problem. He's ONE GUY against teh WORLD'S SCIENTISTS and he hasn't been able to generate the data or provide the evidence needed to shift any of the other scientists (in any substantive numbers) over to his side. IOW - He hasn't made the case.
And that's different from what was being discussed yesterday on this thread, saying that LIBERALS haven't made their case to the PUBLIC and to stop blaming the MEDIA. HIS VOICE is not being ignored. It's being heard, his evidence is being considered, but it's being dismissed as insufficient at this time. Science is not politics. If there's really something WRONG with what they're doing, he would, could and should be able to demonstrate this in an objective, evidecne-based, data-supported way that would convince a few others to start lookinh into it, finding more supporting evidence, etc...
He can have all the suspicions he wants, but until he can make then case to the sicentific community, you can't go taking the ONE MAN'S suspicions over the CONCLUSIONS that have been reached by the CONSENSUS so far.
--------------------------------------------------
"Galileo was a rebel, but not all rebels are Galileo." ~Dr. Paul Offit
"There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not."
The only other bone I would pick with you is your claim that we risk very little if we follow IPCC recommendations. I believe the exact opposite is the case as you invite the whole government camel into the tent. Gargantuan government bureaucracies set up to mitigate CO2 will not be "hardly a problem." Same goes for cap and trade.
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services
This predates his work woth the IPCC, and is hardly conducive to doing objective research in such a partisan and controversial field. I'm not dismissing the man outright, but he has an agenda that's shaping his theories, while other are letting their theories, data and evicence shape their agendas.
-------------------------------------------------------
Again: It's not WHAT you guys think that's the problem, it's HOW.
"AGW propaganda machine" sounds a little like a conspiracy.
Must take a lot of people to coordinate a lot of moving parts to get this conspiracy to work.
I also heard Oswald wasn't the lone gunman and the government is hiding crashed aliens in the desert somewhere.
I don't care if 57% of Americans don't think that man made global warming is true. What do the majority of Climatologists (not Meteorologists) think?
29% of NJ Republicans believe that Obama may be the anti-Christ.
68% of Republicans don't believe in evolution.
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But don't tell RightOn that - apparently scientific fact doesn't exsist until the public is convinced.
The public 'gets it' that this just isnt going to happen and if they took any time to really dig into the matter, it would not take long to find a mountain of contrary information.
Polar bear populations have grown 500% since the 1950s.
Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded in 2008.
There is no scientific consensus about global warming. Many hundreds of scientists have come out against the theory.
The US October temperatures were the third coldest in 115 years.
Germany had the coldest October temperatures ever recorded.
Expect a very very cold Winter.
Lots more information why AGW isnt true, www.isthereglobalwarming.com
Weere you aware that the global average temperature for July-September was the hottest in the entire instrumental record, which goes back to 1880? And even that doesn't mean anything. The temperature for one month over less than 2% of the Earth's surface is truly meaningless.
And the "no consensus" thing is just wrong. The consensus is in the 85-90% range according to two separate polls. That's about the same as for evolution.
Here's a good link for you:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html
More links with good info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
While you're at it why not state that there's no scientific consensus about evolution?
For you to say that the public has lots of common sense, and to say that we can't fool them, simply tells us how easy it is to fool YOU.
Here's a good link for you:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html
More links with good info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
After all, this is the same guy who couldn't understand hyperbole when it smacked him in the face, remember.
I don't take anything a cherry-picking denier posts seriously.
The facts are simple:
There's a scientific consensus regarding AGW. Sure, there are the handful of scientists who are deniers. We'll always have them. Who knows. One of these days, someone may have the proof that changes everything. But, there's a very low probability of that happening.
The same scientific community that holds the consensus has influence over the world's leaders, so effort is focused in the right areas.
The only way deniers can counter the consensus is to imply some ill-defined vast conspiracy of some sort that quashes any dissent. If dissent was quashed, why then are papers continually submitted by so-called skeptical scientists? The only reason they don't all get published is that their "proof" is garbage.
Deniers can just whine and throw their tantrums. They're loud, but quite ineffective.
Don't tell Delly that some skeptic papers have been published. She's under the impression that there isn't a single one out there. You're next on the Delly hit list buddy.
Kind of like AGW.
And I guess you forgot that you first lied about ever having said it to begin with.
Hyperbole is not saying anything LITERALLY.
Too bad that after having it explained to you countless times, you still don't get it.
And you think that bringing up the fact that you still don't get it does something for your credibility?
Your side seems to have plenty of national exposure, (Al Gore?)
And numbers of "True Believers" are still dropping.
There are no legit "con" Global Climate Change stories. There's not one peer-reviewed article that debunks human-caused global warming. All we get from your side are distortions of the evidence, lies about what the evidence shows and omission of relevant data. So yeah, we think that the national debate shouldn't be poisoned by that nonsense. It gets more influence than it deserves since it isn't credible!
It's not our fault that the truth as a liberal bias.
It's not our fault that your side gets more airtime than a non-credible screed deserves, which in turn misleads people.
Gee, where have we seen this before?????????
Many issues cannot be labeled "truth" or "lies", they are merely opinions and viewpoints. Something liberals don't like unless it's theirs, when they then call them "lies".
Generalization troll. It's becoming a bad habit for you.
In any event, I have asked this before, what is the ultimate goal here? Who do global warming activists really want from us? Regulation, money? What is the bottom line? Because I consider myself a pretty darn good steward of the environment. So what do you really want?
What do I want us humans to do? For starters to be informed about the facts. Which brings us to the point of this thread. I ask you what is the job of our media? I would think job #1 is to inform. We have a scientific consensus regarding GCC and yet only 57% percent believe it's real. Do you think perhaps our media has fallen down on this issue?
I wish no politics or ideology were involved in this but that is simply not the case as can be proven by the ambitions of the UNFCCC. Further, what you consider to be the facts about a consensus is proof to me at least that the media has done an awful job in educating the public about this issue.
AGW has been so heavily propagandized that now believers feel they have some high moral ground over skeptics, and thus they preach to "deniers" with condescension, derision, and insult, something I have returned in kind. My goals for a good future for my son are the same as yours. Creating a monstrous bureaucracy to combat a phantom problem will negatively impact my son.
"AGW has been so heavily propagandized that now believers feel they have some high moral ground over skeptics, and thus they preach to "deniers" with condescension, derision, and insult, something I have returned in kind."
I think most will agree here that deniers are the ones who tend to "preach ... with condescension, derision, and insult".
I invite anyone here to review your posts, to see what I mean.
We "elitists" just choose to follow the direction of the smart scientists, who have concluded that AGW is real.
If you deniers just can't accept that, it's your problem. Oh, but you think I'm acting all "elitist" by saying that.
No one requested your presence on this site. You knew how the opinions would lean in these posts. Yet you persists in your trolling, repeating the same time-wasting, debunked pseudoscience.
If you don't like us "elitists", then just go somewhere else. Otherwise, quit acting like a victim and quit whining about it.
Ironically, I knew nothing about MMfA when I first came here a few months ago (linked through Google News in one of the AGW articles). Therefore I had no pre-conceived notions about leanings. Didn't take long to figure it out though.
http://madmonster.williams.edu/climate/webpages/Lectures/L.09.html
And the answer is the energy industries, the Republican Party and the right-wing propaganda machine.
"right-wing propaganda machine" sounds a little like a conspiracy.
Must take a lot of people to coordinate a lot of moving parts to get this conspiracy to work.
I also heard Oswald wasn't the lone gunman and the government is hiding crashed aliens in the desert somewhere.
SLURTAX, where are you? Cue the black helicopters.
And so what we need to do is fight to inform people about that lack of credibility because as long as they get influence they don't deserve, they continue to poison the debate!
And you're the disgusting, rotten thing who keeps trying to tell us that we shouldn't do what we are 100% invested in doing, which leads me to believe that it's exactly what we should be doing.
And your personal attacks on me lead all of us to know that you are scared sh*tless of what I do here. I think that's terrific that you are so frightened of me. It entertains me and delights me, so too bad, so sad with your suggestion that I'm a "poor thing". You need to stop looking in the mirror when you're typing.
I have to say this is the funniest post you've written in quite a while. Funnier even than your wishes for my early demise. The humor comes mostly from the "scared" and "frightened" references. Truly hilarious.
You think "deniers" like me are scared of you? If we were scared why would we enter into such a hostile forum knowing we will face an endless barrage from a seemingly inexhaustible parade of AGW cultists such as yourself? Shouldn't we be hiding in the dark away from your wrath? Why subject ourselves to your propaganda-fueled zealotry if fear was a factor?
The truth is skeptics like me have no fear of the anti-science AGW brigade and the reason why is quite simple. We have truth on our side. You've heard the saying, "The truth will set you free." I plan on that being the case. So while you prepare to continue your fight, I fire back that I have not yet begun to fight (to borrow a phrase from an old revolutionary soul).
The irony to me is that you are the one that is starting to sound scared, like you feel that maybe the AGW realm you inhabit might just be unravelling as I predicted it would. And it isn't that you fear people like me, but you fear the loss of identity that will come with the shattering of your AGW religious belief system. It really is kind of sad in a way but that is what happens to people who have lost themselves in a fantasy world.
You may now feel the warm comfort with your large flock of AGW sheep are entertained and delighted, but when the day comes and the herd has continued to thin and there are just the few die-hard believers such as yourself left to "fight to [indoctrinate] people" take solace in the fact that you tried your best, I guess.
And after I expose your inability to even figure that out, you think that people are going to listen to a word you say?
Uh, no.
And yeah, we know that trolls post here, and on other sites, because they are scared to leave the truth unchallenged.
They aren't coming to "my" defense - I don't need them to nor want them to. They are defending the truth from a troll.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id
That link is so full of falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies....
Well, let's just say I've seen better when I clean my cat's litter box.
Here are the facts:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Are you still actually trying to pass off that absolute "not one peer-reviewed article" obfuscation yet again despite having been trounced on the notion repeatedly on previous threads? That is the definition of insanity. I think it is you that is getting too much airtime, or maybe it's just too much nitrous.
I like how you don't provide a bit of evidence to prove that it's been debunked, though, just to reinforce that you can't! Thanks for helping discredit yourself here! It's always appreciated, and very entertaining!
I had given you the benefit of the doubt in my reply earlier, but now I highly doubt that you have really investigated the science and instead are yet another of the "consensus" regurgitators. Do you know of what the backbones on your consensus are comprised?
You like so many others think there are no issues with the "consensus" "science" because you have been told repeatedly that "the debate is over." That is a sad state of affairs and you would be well served to do some independent investigation rather than parrot the same old tired consensus nonsense.
Actually I haven't been told repeatedly the "debate is over", the only thing I've heard in the media is that "I've been told repeatedly the debate is over" by global warming deniers, so thanks for incrementing that stat by one.
Regarding consensus, are you actually claiming one doesn't exists?
If you haven't heard "the debate is over" or one of its many variations then you haven't been listening.
As I've said throughout this thread and others, the "consensus" is based off of the flawed science from what is actually a small group of scientists that have been propped up by the IPCC as having found the AGW fingerprint starting with the elevation of Mann.
As to whether or not most climate scientists (a majority of whom are not involved in GW attribution) now believe the company line, I would say that is true. But again I ask, what is that consensus built upon? If you think that is irrelevant, then you haven't investigated the theory enough.
Go to scholar.google.com and do this search:
"global warming" OR "climate change"
You'll come up with about 148,000 scholarly papers. Considering that studies of the literature (e.g., Oreskes) have found almost no papers rejecting the consensus position on global warming, I'd say that the estimate of "1,000's of peer reviewed papers" is wrong--it's much too low.
Here are some actual facts.
Pew Research conducted a poll of over 2,500 US scientists and found that 85% believe Earth is getting warmer due to human activity.
A second poll, reported by EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, surveyed over 3,100 Earth scientists and reported a similar level of agreement among all Earth scientists, 88% among climatologists, and an astonishing 97% of actively publishing climatologists.
So much for "pulling numbers out of the air", eh? What hard data do you base your "no consensus" claim on, exactly?
Furthermore, of your 2,500 US scientists/3,100 Earth scientists, what percentage actually deal with the attribution issue since that is the crux of the matter? I can't say and need to prepare for Veterans Day activities and can't go digging, but IMO that number will be very low. If I verify my presumption, I will post my findings this evening.
On a side note, please support veterans today if you have the opportunity. Regardless of your political ideology, they need your support now more than ever.
Summary:
* 2 questions: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
* 3,146 earth scientists surveyed
* About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
* results for climatologists who are active in research: 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
* results for Petroleum geologists and meteorologists: 47 and 64 respectively believing in human involvement.
The authors of the survey conlude:
"the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
That's a consensus!!!!! It's undeniable.
But Galileonardo will deny it. Just wait. But he thinks that hyperbole is the same as an active death wish, so.....
The troll will deny anything that does not fit with his/her political agenda.
Now, let's vote on it - does the sun orbit the earth? Anyone?
If we left it to the "average American", we'd still be living on a flat earth.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf