Why do conservatives deny Global Warming?

[_Scottie]

As I understand it, there are 2 different arguments here.

1) Is there global warming?
2) Is man responsible for global warming?

It's quite possible that there is global warming that is just a natural part of the Earths warming/cooling patterns and man has nothing to do with it. We can't stop it.

Then again, perhaps man has caused it and we need to take steps to help.

[_Droopy]

The Oregon Petition just announced that it now has 31,072 signers, from numerous earth sciences and related disciplines, including eminent theoretical Physicist Freeman Dyson.

http://www.petitionproject.org

It seems that the body of "deniers" gets larger, and more distinguished, all the time.

And then there are those who watch CNN...

My electrician signed that three times (called himself an electrical engineer). LOL

Seriously, the original Oregon petition is a flawed and irrelevant political stunt. Why are they asking microbiologists and engineers? Indeed, why are they asking the opinions of actors and pop singers?

Behold:

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[19]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[20] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

Tarski's inability or unwillingness to educated himself on these issues, especially as a scientist himself, is disheartening.

As to the Oregon petition:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdataba ... gners.html

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdataba ... gners.html

(pay especial attention to point number 5, 6, and 7)

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1834.htm

In the meantime, we're now moving into our eleventh year without any global warming as the planet continues a general cooling trend and the extent of ice in the South Arctic is larger than at any time since areal or satellite mapping began. The GCM's have long been discredited as reliable predictors of future climate behavior, and AGW hysteria remains the province of the political and cultural Left; their Great White Hope in their ongoing struggle to strip American society of self government, a contractual, free market economic order, and its Judeo/Christian social and moral foundation.

Here, in contrast to the 31,000 degreed scientists (or with degrees in science based disciplines), including over 9,000 PhD's, are the Left's experts on the subject:

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Oh, this may not really be fair, of course. Tarski at least, would probably also list real, if discredited scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen, but not to the credit of his position.

AGW is dead, except among the activist Left and numerous climate scientists beholden to interested government grant money seeking scientific data useful in the formation of policy.

Many would argue, however, that science, thought of in this way, isn't really science at all (nor is science done by 'consensus).

[_Droopy]

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

[_Droopy]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... /#more-338

http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbook ... gures.html

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf


Its over.

[_Tarski]

Here, in contrast to the 31,000 degreed scientists (or with degrees in science based disciplines), including over 9,000 PhD's, are the Left's experts on the subject:

No those are not the left's experts you flat out f8cking bald faced liar. You may as well, or I would if I were like you, provide the analogous list for the Right which would include a long list of crap kickers, country singers, cab drivers and a few inconvenienced industrialists, who have given their opinion on right-wing talk radio. You would be on the list!

Why should anyone listen to you? You have the property of being both an unqualified scientific illiterate and at the same time a conscious liar.


By the way, since you think its over (contrary to fact), that is, that scientists are now on your side (again contrary to fact), I have two questions for you genius:

1. How on earth did the political right anticipate that the scientific tide would turn (it hasn't but just hypothetically)? How did the political right know in advance? was it a guess? Did God tell you? Can conservatives just see how science will go in advance of it actually going that way??? You see the point is this: Even if the tide did turn, the pronouncements of the Right were never rationally justified because they have been saying they knew the outcome long ago. No, you dolt, an ideologically motivated end run around real science isn't rational, even if it turned out to be scientifically backed up much later (but it it hasn't). If it is divided along political lines then it can't have ever been science that drove popular opinions now can it? No.
In particular, it can't have been science that made rightwingers claim what they have been claiming. Not unless you think republicans like Limbaugh make better scientists than the real scientists or can see into the future.


2. If it's really over, why the hell won't you shut up about it? Still fighting the civil war too?
No. That's not it.
You know that it really isn't over and that scientists will determine the outcome, not right-wing hacks like you.

You see, I don't liten to ideologues from the right or left. I read the literature and not culled or selected by political web sites. I can actually read and understand much of the literature. I also know how to tell who is an expert and who isn't. It is based on criteria that hasn't go anything to do with political party, nor do I have to check where they stand in advance of deciding if they are competant.

I will keep track of the mainstream in climate science itself. You can keep reading your right-wing blogs and compiling list of people with BS degrees largely in the wrong field (be sure to check which side they are on first--that's all you know how to keep track of-).

[_Droopy]

No those are not the left's experts you flat out f8cking bald faced liar.

Of course, this was intended to be facetious (even though, for many, these people are looked at as experts) The Left does have its experts, such as Mann and Hansen, and their flacks at Realclimate, but they've already lost the empirical argument...long ago. The corpse will continue twitching for sometime, I'll admit.

You may as well, or I would if I were like you, provide the analogous list for the Right which would include a long list of s*** kickers, country singers, cab drivers and a few inconvenienced industrialists, who have given their opinion on right-wing talk radio. You would be on the list!

I've been listing the experts I follow on this issue for the better part of the last year or so I'd wager, and all of them are distinguished climate and earth scientitists, a number of them, like Balling, Singer, and Lindzen, being eminent.

Why should anyone listen to you? You have the property of being both an unqualified scientific illiterate and at the same time a conscious liar.

Typical, typical liberal Tarski. Your pants are down around your ankles and you've fallen flat on your face and can't take responsibility for not tightening your belt before you left the house. I've been observing this since the seventies; back a leftist up against the wall with just a few facts or samples of logical argument and the whole fragile house comes tumbling down in a torrent of invective, ad hominems, and special pleading. It is, as they say, all of a piece.

1. How on earth did the political right anticipate that the scientific tide would turn (it hasn't but just hypothetically)? How did the political right know in advance? was it a guess? Did God tell you?

They didn't. The empirical evidence was never strongly on the side of the cult of AGW in the first place except in the most inconclusive, circumstantial way. The empirical evidence has over the last decade or so, and especially in the last few years, decimated any semblance of scientific plausibility to the AGW scenario.

Secondly, both conservative and libertarian thinkers saw clearly early on that AGW was a project of the Left, not just here, but around the world, much of it centered at the U.N. and among its NGO's and special interest supporters. Mikhail Gorbachev was no sooner out of power in the old Soviet Union than he fled directly into the environmental movement, forming Green Cross International and birthing the Earth Charter. Virtually the entire old untopian collectivist Left moved into the environmental movement (and other general movements/concerns (anti-globalization etc.))after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the discrediting of its ideology), only for that ideology to reemerge in the guise of "environmental justice", "Green" ideology and cause activism, and "saving the planet" (to be clear, these ideas existed well before this, but the influx of the old hard left into the movement brought an intensity and ferver to it that had not hitherto existed in the public square), all of them involving, if accepted, the de facto construction of much the same kind of society favored by the Left historically. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

2. If it's really over, why the hell won't you shut up about it? Still fighting the civil war too?

Because influential ideological fanatics like Al Gore and Lysenkoists like you and Hansen and Mann won't let it go.

You know that it really isn't over and that scientists will determine the outcome, not right-wing hacks like you.

The earth warmed just slightly over a half a degree centigrade during the last century, well within natural historic and geological variation. The main phase of that warming ended in 1940, when a cooling trend set in, peaking in the late seventies. Warming began again in the early 80's (about 1983), and continued until 1998, when warming ceased. None of the GCM predictions have held up to empirical observation. Most of the warming that has occured has been at night, at gournd level, and in the winter, unlike the GCM's which predicted that, if AGW was real, it should be most noticible in the tropics at upper altitudes. What do the empirical observations actually say? The upper atmospher (troposphere) has not warmed at all, and in the upper layers of this layer, the trend is of the opposite sign to model predictions - its cooling, not warming. The arctic has been in a measurable cooling trend for upwards of at least 30 years now, and this year's ice mass is larger than at any time since the beginning of satellite mapping.

There is not a shred of empirical scientific evidence that CO2 drives climate change in any significant manner, and all the paleoclimatological data now available clearly shows that, over vast stretches of geologic time, CO2 always follows warming by an average of 800 years (sometimes less, sometimes substantially more). It never precedes it.

You and those like you will probably eventually get your wish and destroy economic freedom, property rights, and western liberal democracy, and realize the all consuming nanny state you desire, but the present AGW scare will not be your ace in the hole.

You see, I don't liten to ideologues from the right or left. I read the literature and not culled or selected by political web sites. I can actually read and understand much of the literature. I also know how to tell who is an expert and who isn't.

Uh huh, yearh, well...OK...

I will keep track of the mainstream in climate science itself. You can keep reading your right-wing blogs and compiling list of people with BS degrees largely in the wrong field (be sure to check which side they are on first--that's all you know how to keep track of-).

Its clear, all your desperate protestations aside, that you have not the slightest idea what the arguments on the other side are, and, despite the competent, distinguished, and eminent climate and earth scientists who disagree with the alarmist view by the tens of thousands, have no interest in educating yourself on both sides of the debate.

The science is settled: its still the discredited GCM's (which is not climate science per se) and the actual empirical climatological and paleoclimatological evidence, which has disconfirmed of failed to confirm literally every prediction made by the modelers in their computer labs thus far.

AGW is, and always has been an ideological corruption of science in the name of political and social transformation.

The game is over now, and will remain so, until the next manufactured environmental "crises" captures the simpleminded but fervent attention of the mainstream media and the western cultural Left.











_________________
One thing I've consistently noticed in debates with believers - when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

[Guest]

Droopy,

As I asked in this thread you ran away from once your some of your denialist canards were patiently broken down, do you read original scientific papers on climatology outside of those referenced and interpreted by denialist websites? Not that I trust your truth-telling skills, but I'm genuinely curious how far you go. What scientific journals do you read that are relevant to climate science? Other publications?

And, for fun:

"The upper atmosphere (troposphere) has not warmed at all, and in the upper layers of this layer, the trend is of the opposite sign to model predictions - its cooling, not warming."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... pshere-ii/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... re-trends/

Darn flacks.

[_Tarski]

Quote:
1. How on earth did the political right anticipate that the scientific tide would turn (it hasn't but just hypothetically)? How did the political right know in advance? was it a guess? Did God tell you?

They didn't. The empirical evidence was never strongly on the side of the cult of AGW in the first place except in the most inconclusive, circumstantial way. The empirical evidence has over the last decade or so, and especially in the last few years, decimated any semblance of scientific plausibility to the AGW scenario.

Oh, I see! Not only do you claim that a majority of climate scientists now deny AGW, but you now claim they never supported it.

Riiiight.

The The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union ,
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), IPCC.

all just a dream or communist conspiracy?
Riiiight.
and marx himself must have wrote this into wiki:

...endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

You are a laugh a minute.
Science is still going despite you and Ann Coulter.
Read it and weep--it's still accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change


1 Statements by concurring organizations
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association
2 Noncommittal statements
2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists
3 Statements by dissenting organizations
4 Scientific consensus
5 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
5.1 APEGGA, 2007
5.2 Oreskes, 2004
5.3 Bray and von Storch, 2003
5.4 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
5.5 Bray and von Storch, 1996
5.6 Other older surveys of scientists

[_EAllusion]

Hey Tarsk,

Here's a much talked about article published in Science a few years back:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

[_Droopy]

As I asked in this thread you ran away from once your some of your denialist canards were patiently broken down, do you read original scientific papers on climatology outside of those referenced and interpreted by denialist websites? Not that I trust your truth-telling skills, but I'm genuinely curious how far you go. What scientific journals do you read that are relevant to climate science? Other publications?

I read the descriptive explanations and analysis of the issue by competent, distinguished, and eminent scientists in the field. I also follow journal articles on the web when I can find them, and analysis of them by competent analysts (one of the best sources being http://www.co2science.org).

And, for fun:

"The upper atmosphere (troposphere) has not warmed at all, and in the upper layers of this layer, the trend is of the opposite sign to model predictions - its cooling, not warming."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... pshere-ii/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... re-trends/

Darn flacks.

Yes, playing your ignorance of both the issue itself and the reliability of your "sources" like a violin is, indeed, fun.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

I would be very careful with Realclimate. Realclimate.org is a front for discredited AGW alarmist Michael Mann, created after his he and his now infamous "hockey stick" graph were sent scientifically packing, even by the IPCC. Realclimate is a site maintained by AGW true believers who's primary purpose is ideological and intellectual turf protection. There main tactic is endless quibbling over fine scientific details as an ink squirting tactic, and continued attempts to rehabilitate the GCMs, now long discredited as anything approaching reliable predictors of climate change (next week, let alone a century from now).

Why don't you just admit, E, that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about beyond the carefully vetted propaganda of Realclimate and CNN and that you've never so much as engaged the arguments of Lindzen, Soon, Landsea, Ballling, Singer, Pielke, Christie, and the, as of this post, many thousands of other climate and earth scientists from around the world, who have signed the Heidelberg appeal, and the Oregon Petition (which Tarski, you can stop misrepresenting now, as your tendentious attempts thus far, culled from anti-capitalist left wing environmentalist websites like Exxonsecrets, have failed)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... sensus.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... sensus.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/200605291227 ... xperts.cfm

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... niers.aspx

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... bed2f6&k=0

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html ... b87559d605

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419

Gavin Schmidt, of Realclimate, by the way, is an associate of the now infamous James Hansen, of this fame:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange

He is also not a climate scientist, but a climate modeler. He does not do empirical climate science.

Steve McIntyre's excellent Climate Audit site contains an extensive set of entries and analysis of Hansen's fudged data and history of sweaty palmed extremism.

Also you may enjoy:

http://www.sepp.org/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2018

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2648

You know, eventually all of the "inconvenient truths" are just going to become to heavy to bear for the ideologues, utopian dreamers, and hand rubbing philosopher kings who so desperately need AGW to be true.

Desperately...