The harder the Alarmists try ...

[Strongbad]

don't worry, he's switching to anomolies in 3.. 2..1..

It is kind of sad though. At one point I thought of him as an intelligent, well-read AGW'er. Now it is looking more like he is the kook and other posters, like skier, carry the integrity.

[skierinvermont]

So, Real Climate and Skeptical Science are denialist sites now?? WOW.

As far as I know, WUWT and CA allow, and even promote, dissenting views. Care to try again?

In the comments section, you can post skeptical science at both SS and RC. I should know since I was a skeptic and posting there is part of what 'converted' me. When scientific articles contradict AGW orthodoxy they are usually posted on RC and SS. They've covered papers which argue for a lower climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks. And they've covered the O'Donnell paper which says Antarctica isn't warming as much as Steig said it was.

The comments section at WUWT doesn't accept pro-AGW comments.. they are usually deleted. Which is why there are no such comments. RC + SS + WUWT + CA all have pretty low tolerance for opposing comments in the comments section. They'll let some of them go by, but they will delete them for the slightest excuse. I don't really see a difference between any of the four. CA and SS might have slightly more open posting policy. I've seen some pretty loony denier arguments in the comments of SS which aren't deleted. SS doesn't seem to delete anything.

The only difference between RealClimate/SS and WUWT/CA is that the former focus on peer-reviewed science while the other is primarily guest posts by bloggers.

[LakeEffectKing]

Let me make sure I understand your position. So if science determines to a 99% confidence level that our present Business As Usual (BAU) is going to cause major catastrophies for the next generation, you would oppose government efforts to avert those catastrophies? Remember, BAU, i.e. the free market, is in large part the source of the impending crisis so the fact that it hasn't changed is strong evidence that it won't change. At least not in time to avert the crisis.

Would your answer be the same if the impending crisis was a newly discovered asteroid that is going to impact Earth in the future? Would you oppose efforts by world governments, and instead rely on the free market to avert the asteroid strike?

Business as usual, per Hansen, should have resulted in another .5 or so degrees of warming, at present (or over the past decade)...there is reason to be skeptical...

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's not realistic that three posters with the exact same agenda, exact same talking points, exact same profile set ups(which is none) not only take each others arguments up for one another. Use constant slander and vitrol in the same manner to discredit others.

have never even debated something let alone disagreed.

I never said you were bots. It's just not real.

[Strongbad]

"slander". okie-dokie.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

When you don't understand the implications of your own words, it's time to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately, you have not done so. Also, good luck giving an actual reason why people are losing faith in AGW.

Source

[Strongbad]

It's not realistic that three posters with the exact same agenda, exact same talking points, exact same profile set ups(which is none) not only take each others arguments up for one another. Use constant slander and vitrol in the same manner to discredit others.

have never even debated something let alone disagreed.

I never said you were bots. It's just not real.

Reality bites. Especially when you have no good answers for your opposition other than these crazy conspiracies you have been ranting about lately.

Good luck selling the public with your approach. I'm sure you never thought anything you typed here could be seen as slander. If you'd like, I'll go back and PM each of those instances to you...

[skierinvermont]

When you don't understand the implications of your own words, it's time to admit you were wrong. Unfortunately, you have not done so. Also, good luck giving an actual reason why people are losing faith in AGW.

Source

You are right.. calling someone 'anti-intellectual' fits the broad definition of slander.

I have no problem calling people what they are. If someone is being anti-intellectual I will call them that. If it's slander, so be it. For example, Sarah Palin is an anti-intellectual.

[skierinvermont]

Business as usual, per Hansen, should have resulted in another .5 or so degrees of warming, at present (or over the past decade)...there is reason to be skeptical...

Wrong.. I have debunked this myth many many times as you are aware. You have ignored these debunkings and yet you continue to repeat the lie. Why?

Even taco and nzucker and ORH have acknowledged Hansen's error is much less than .5C. It's more like .15C.

[LithiaWx]

Agree....the more they marginalize, demonize, or ridicule those they disagree with, the more desperate they look to the average "middle" person.

The skeptical argument is justifiable in most lay persons minds....the AGW elitist "settled science" proclaimation comes off as arrogant, vague and quite distasteful, especially when the likes of Hansen are getting arrested every couple years, people are asked to delete emails, and an overall halting of warming over the last 8-12 years creates doubt in most, non-indoctinated minds.....

Elitists think we are dumb.....let them keep thinking that...they'll drive their bus right into the abyss.. Science will suffer in the short term, but the long term prospects will be much better.

re-quoting this because this should have ended the thread.

/endthread

[skierinvermont]

re-quoting this because this should have ended the thread.

/endthread

I believe in objective truth. If the objective truth comes across as 'elitist' or arrogant then so be it.

The fact is we know CO2 doubling causes 1.2C of warming and we know that throughout the earth's history feedbacks have been predominantly positive. And we have a pretty good physical understanding of why the feedbacks are positive (primarily water vapor).

If understanding these facts and constantly explaining them to people who don't seems elitist, then so be it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Reality bites. Especially when you have no good answers for your opposition other than these crazy conspiracies you have been ranting about lately.

Good luck selling the public with your approach. I'm sure you never thought anything you typed here could be seen as slander. If you'd like, I'll go back and PM each of those instances to you...

Selling the public what?

I am a weather enthusiast from the St. Louis area.

I have a family, friends, and life sitting next to me.

Your one of the dozens of name named faces who come through here in a cyclic nature that drive everyone out of this forum. We have lost countless professionals because your ilk has posted HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND completely agenda driven posts here in under 5 years.

You have no shame or compassion. A quality most humans posses. It's almost universal to the faceless posters that they lack that in this forum. And never stick around or get banned.

They also post in the main forum and local forums at first and end up with nearly all of there posts in here as they wrap it up.

It's nothing new, it's just a shame the powers at be won't stop it.

[PhillipS]

So, Real Climate and Skeptical Science are denialist sites now?? WOW.

As far as I know, WUWT and CA allow, and even promote, dissenting views. Care to try again?

Real Climate and Skeptical Science have a large number of dissenting comments - which you would know if you regularly read either. However, they are moderated blogs so crap comments only appear in places like Real Climate's Borehole.

But WUWT is infamous for Watt's banning of dissenters. Here's a ClimateProgress column on his censorship attempts, in this case of a video on youtube. Here is another one on Watts trying to stifle dissent. There is a lot more out there for anyone interested.

You're right that CA allows most dissenting commenters, but since Steve McIntyre isn't one of the folks I mentioned why did you bring them up?

[LithiaWx]

I believe in objective truth. If the objective truth comes across as 'elitist' or arrogant then so be it.

The fact is we know CO2 doubling causes 1.2C of warming and we know that throughout the earth's history feedbacks have been predominantly positive. And we have a pretty good physical understanding of why the feedbacks are positive (primarily water vapor).

If understanding these facts and constantly explaining them to people who don't seems elitist, then so be it.

For the AGW movement to be successful you guys are going to have to start offering solutions. Nobody wants to hear about a problem that has no solutions. You guys are not winning the PR side of this at all. This is why I said LEK's post should have ended the thread.

[PhillipS]

Business as usual, per Hansen, should have resulted in another .5 or so degrees of warming, at present (or over the past decade)...there is reason to be skeptical...

You didnt answer my comment. I said if science determines to a 99% confidence level that BAU will result in future catastrophies would you oppose government efforts to avert the crisis. I didn't say that science can demonstrate that level of confidence today.

And Hansen's projections were made in 1988 in his testimony to Congress, if I remember correctly. Hopefully we've learned a lot since then.

[LithiaWx]

You didnt answer my comment. I said if science determines to a 99% confidence level that BAU will result in future catastrophies would you oppose government efforts to avert the crisis. I didn't say that science can demonstrate that level of confidence today.

And Hansen's projections were made in 1988 in his testimony to Congress, if I remember correctly. Hopefully we've learned a lot since then.

what governments? How do we control the governments of India and China to cut back emissions? If the US decreases our emissions by half but China and India keep increasing emissions where does that leave us. What should we do to limit CO2 emissions? How do we control other countries into doing what we want them to do? There is no answer right now and until we get an implementable solution don't expect much to happen.

[skierinvermont]

For the AGW movement to be successful you guys are going to have to start offering solutions. Nobody wants to hear about a problem that has no solutions. You guys are not winning the PR side of this at all. This is why I said LEK's post should have ended the thread.

Well 'lack of solutions' isn't what LEK said. He said that it was failing because AGWers insist the science is settled (which it is). So your point is different.

I agree with your point. People don't believe AGW because it is a problem with no (good) solutions. Either we tax carbon, which means a lower living standard by most people's standards. Or we do nothing, and face the consequences. There is a less painful way but there is no painless way.

It's not a PR problem though. It's just the nature of reality that is a problem.

[skierinvermont]

what governments? How do we control the governments of India and China to cut back emissions? If the US decreases our emissions by half but China and India keep increasing emissions where does that leave us. What should we do to limit CO2 emissions? How do we control other countries into doing what we want them to do? There is no answer right now and until we get an implementable solution don't expect much to happen.

Well there is such a thing as leading by example. I expect China and India will increase their emissions no matter what we do. But we probably can influence how much. Especially in the long-run.

Maybe if we lead by example, we can convince China and India to grow their emissions slower over the next 20 years. Then 20 years from now, if AGW becomes too painful to ignore, we will be a lot more ready than if nobody did anything.

Even if we don't do this, there are a number of fairly painless steps we could take.

1. Subsidize clean energy to a fairly modest tune via direct subsidies and loan guarantees. Nothing huge and expensive.. but more than we're doing now. That will help the technology development and create economies of scale. Maybe 20-50B/yr. A drop in the bucket for the federal government.

2. Build clean infrastructure instead of dirty infrastructure. IE high speed rail instead of roads.

3. Fund research into alt energies.

1,2,3 are 3 pretty painless ways to start addressing the problem. They might even be good economic policies in the long-run, regardless of AGW. Much less painful than a hefty carbon tax.

[tacoman25]

Wrong.. I have debunked this myth many many times as you are aware. You have ignored these debunkings and yet you continue to repeat the lie. Why?

Even taco and nzucker and ORH have acknowledged Hansen's error is much less than .5C. It's more like .15C.

It depends on if he meant .5C or .5F. Depending on what temp source you use, .5F isn't far off.

[skierinvermont]

It depends on if he meant .5C or .5F. Depending on what temp source you use, .5F isn't far off.

true.. didn't think of F.. I'd guess he meant C but he should clarify. Even if he meant .5F that's still wrong though much closer.

[bobbutts]

Since when is the validity of science decided by public debate? If you were to debate why would you ask Gore who is not a scientist?

Not about science in this series of posts for me.

I'm talking about alarmists hurting their own cause. Public perception does mean something in the context of government policy dealing with climate change since it clearly affects who we vote into office. If AGW was number one on the OP chart ahead of the economy and jobs, you can bet the govt would make it a priority. Gore is the world's best known alarmist afaik.

I've argued in the past that Gore's exaggerations were acceptable or even heroic given potential gravity of the situation. That the cause justified the means. I abandoned that position a long time ago after realizing (or maybe being schooled a bit by LEK and others over at eastern) that in this context, building your predictions out of worst-case outliers unacceptable and inaccurate.

The number of people who give a crap about it shows that something is wrong with the movement and I don't think it's just the big bad skeptics

[WeatherRusty]

Not about science in this series of posts for me.

I'm talking about alarmists hurting their own cause. Public perception does mean something in the context of government policy dealing with climate change since it clearly affects who we vote into office. If AGW was number one on the OP chart ahead of the economy and jobs, you can bet the govt would make it a priority. Gore is the world's best known alarmist afaik.

I've argued in the past that Gore's exaggerations were acceptable or even heroic given potential gravity of the situation. That the cause justified the means. I abandoned that position a long time ago after realizing (or maybe being schooled a bit by LEK and others over at eastern) that in this context, building your predictions out of worst-case outliers unacceptable and inaccurate.

The number of people who give a crap about it shows that something is wrong with the movement and I don't think it's just the big bad skeptics

The worst thing that ever happened, and he should have seen it coming, was for Al Gore to become the first person to be thought of at the mention of Global Warming. A political figure as the common person's first association with AGW is polarizing right out of the box.

You need to consider what a warming world will be like 200 years from now if you don't think we have that much to worry about during the next few decades. The worst case scenarios could be that long or longer in the making.

[valkhorn]

Not about science in this series of posts for me.

I'm talking about alarmists hurting their own cause. Public perception does mean something in the context of government policy dealing with climate change since it clearly affects who we vote into office. If AGW was number one on the OP chart ahead of the economy and jobs, you can bet the govt would make it a priority. Gore is the world's best known alarmist afaik.

I've argued in the past that Gore's exaggerations were acceptable or even heroic given potential gravity of the situation. That the cause justified the means. I abandoned that position a long time ago after realizing (or maybe being schooled a bit by LEK and others over at eastern) that in this context, building your predictions out of worst-case outliers unacceptable and inaccurate.

The number of people who give a crap about it shows that something is wrong with the movement and I don't think it's just the big bad skeptics

I feel the 'skeptics' are hurting their cause, too. Why? Because for many of them it's no longer about the science of it, but the politics of it. I've seen way too many skeptics do the following:

1. Claim that the Earth is cooling (which is patently false)
2. Claim that CO2 level increases are not by man
3. Make fun of Al Gore (he has nothing to do with the actual science)
4. Claim that "because it was cold or snowed" there is no Global Warming
5. Claim that "because the US is cold" there is no Global Warming
6. Claim that scientists said there was an Ice Age coming in the 70s (which isn't true)
7. Claim that GCR are responsible for the current warming (when no conclusive evidence has been found and none will be for 5-10 years either way)
8. Claim that man has zero net impact on the climate because the Earth is so big (which cannot be true because we emit things into the atmosphere)
9. Claim that trillions are spent on AGW government funding (which is not true)
10. Claim that the money is clearly being made on the AGW side (which is not true)
11. Claim that there is no consensus (which is not true)
12. Claim that because x scientist said y, there is no consensus
13. Claim that because x scientists signed petition y, there is no consensus
14. Claim that 'climategate' proved AGW was a hoax (which is not true)
15. Claim that 'hide the decline' referred to global cooling, when it referred to northern hemisphere tree ring data
16. Claim that because natural cycles exist, there cannot be man made changes (I'm not sure how this makes sense)
17. Claim that it's all part of a natural cycle, when no known natural cycle exists that works on this time scale
18. Cite scientific papers claiming they say one thing, when in fact they say something else (the paper about the North Atlantic Current, The 'NASA' Paper fiasco, the paper cited by GraceToYou in this thread, etc.)
19. Start blogs and write news articles instead of going to school and going into climate science
20. Listen to blogs and news articles instead of listening to climate scientists

Once skeptics stop doing the above, it'll help their cause, too.

After all, AGW could be wrong, but for it to be wrong the skeptics need to know what the arguments are, what they aren't, what science says, what it doesn't say, what the consensus actually is, and how to actually research to find out what is going on.

Oh, and they have to do one thing I've never seen then own up to - they have to openly admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

[Sunny and Warm]

Real Climate and Skeptical Science have a large number of dissenting comments - which you would know if you regularly read either. However, they are moderated blogs so crap comments only appear in places like Real Climate's Borehole.

But WUWT is infamous for Watt's banning of dissenters. Here's a ClimateProgress column on his censorship attempts, in this case of a video on youtube. Here is another one on Watts trying to stifle dissent. There is a lot more out there for anyone interested.

You're right that CA allows most dissenting commenters, but since Steve McIntyre isn't one of the folks I mentioned why did you bring them up?

You made the general comment that skeptical sites regularly ban dissenting views. Thus my use of CA to counter your overly broad statement.

[PhillipS]

I feel the 'skeptics' are hurting their cause, too. Why? Because for many of them it's no longer about the science of it, but the politics of it. I've seen way too many skeptics do the following:

1. Claim that the Earth is cooling (which is patently false)
2. Claim that CO2 level increases are not by man
3. Make fun of Al Gore (he has nothing to do with the actual science)
4. Claim that "because it was cold or snowed" there is no Global Warming
5. Claim that "because the US is cold" there is no Global Warming
6. Claim that scientists said there was an Ice Age coming in the 70s (which isn't true)
7. Claim that GCR are responsible for the current warming (when no conclusive evidence has been found and none will be for 5-10 years either way)
8. Claim that man has zero net impact on the climate because the Earth is so big (which cannot be true because we emit things into the atmosphere)
9. Claim that trillions are spent on AGW government funding (which is not true)
10. Claim that the money is clearly being made on the AGW side (which is not true)
11. Claim that there is no consensus (which is not true)
12. Claim that because x scientist said y, there is no consensus
13. Claim that because x scientists signed petition y, there is no consensus
14. Claim that 'climategate' proved AGW was a hoax (which is not true)
15. Claim that 'hide the decline' referred to global cooling, when it referred to northern hemisphere tree ring data
16. Claim that because natural cycles exist, there cannot be man made changes (I'm not sure how this makes sense)
17. Claim that it's all part of a natural cycle, when no known natural cycle exists that works on this time scale
18. Cite scientific papers claiming they say one thing, when in fact they say something else (the paper about the North Atlantic Current, The 'NASA' Paper fiasco, the paper cited by GraceToYou in this thread, etc.)
19. Start blogs and write news articles instead of going to school and going into climate science
20. Listen to blogs and news articles instead of listening to climate scientists

Once skeptics stop doing the above, it'll help their cause, too.

After all, AGW could be wrong, but for it to be wrong the skeptics need to know what the arguments are, what they aren't, what science says, what it doesn't say, what the consensus actually is, and how to actually research to find out what is going on.

Oh, and they have to do one thing I've never seen then own up to - they have to openly admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

Excellent!

[Sunny and Warm]

Well 'lack of solutions' isn't what LEK said. He said that it was failing because AGWers insist the science is settled (which it is). So your point is different.

I agree with your point. People don't believe AGW because it is a problem with no (good) solutions. Either we tax carbon, which means a lower living standard by most people's standards. Or we do nothing, and face the consequences. There is a less painful way but there is no painless way.

It's not a PR problem though. It's just the nature of reality that is a problem.

you're kidding yourself if you don't believe it's a PR problem. Please go back to the very first post with the poll results. If the science is settled, why does the majority opinion of the public disagree with the AGW view?? It has nothing to do with lack of solutions. The people don't believe in AGW period.

[Sunny and Warm]

The worst thing that ever happened, and he should have seen it coming, was for Al Gore to become the first person to be thought of at the mention of Global Warming. A political figure as the common person's first association with AGW is polarizing right out of the box.

on this we agree completely.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

It's not realistic that three posters with the exact same agenda, exact same talking points, exact same profile set ups(which is none) not only take each others arguments up for one another. Use constant slander and vitrol in the same manner to discredit others.

have never even debated something let alone disagreed.

I never said you were bots. It's just not real.

You know.....I have actually read most of your post in every thread (except the long ones where you tend to ramble) and while I don't agree with you, I still had some respect for your opinion. Now I have no respect for you and I have put you on the ignore list ........and it takes a lot to get on my ignore list. You seem to be on a crusade and it has clouded your judgement. Trying to say that deniers are computer generated "bots". That's got to be the most absurd post I have ever read on any weather board.

[valkhorn]

you're kidding yourself if you don't believe it's a PR problem. Please go back to the very first post with the poll results. If the science is settled, why does the majority opinion of the public disagree with the AGW view?? It has nothing to do with lack of solutions. The people don't believe in AGW period.

It isn't a PR problem. Science shouldn't need PR consultants any more than it needs a stylist.

The problem is that people in all levels of American society are scientifically illiterate. They don't know what the consensus is on many fundamental scientific issues, including AGW. They don't know how to research a scientific issue. They don't know how to be intellectually honest. They don't consider the possibility that they are wrong.

Why do you think so many Americans want creationism or intelligent design taught in the classroom? Why do you think so many people in congress (on federal and state levels) believe in intelligent design? Because they don't know about science and don't really care - or they think reality is whatever they wish it to be.

EDIT: This is also why they can do this 'push the controversy' nonsense, because they know most of the American public isn't aware that there really isn't a contreversy, and if they make the public put pressure on politicians it's a lot easier than waiting decades to do real science. ID found out this strategy long ago when creationism got kicked out of schools by the supreme court in the 80s. They came up with the Wedge strategy, so they could relabel creationism as intelligent design and falsely stir up controversy where there is none. What they created is a large section of the American population who now think the science is 'unsettled' regarding Evolution, and this segment puts pressure on school boards and politicians, and gets elected as high up as President. This same strategy is being used for those against AGW because they know it works. They know most of the American public won't do their homework and will fall for it.

[valkhorn]

what governments? How do we control the governments of India and China to cut back emissions? If the US decreases our emissions by half but China and India keep increasing emissions where does that leave us. What should we do to limit CO2 emissions? How do we control other countries into doing what we want them to do? There is no answer right now and until we get an implementable solution don't expect much to happen.

I'm not sure about India, but I know China is investing more in green energy than any other country in the world. They have to in order to survive. They know they can't last forever on coal and are already looking for alternatives.

[valkhorn]

I'm still waiting on Strongbad, Gracetoyou, and Sunny and Warm to show what evidence they would consider and how their views might be wrong.

Until they show they are intellectually honest, I see no point in debating them. If they refuse to listen to any evidence that is against what they say, then what's the point in showing it to them?