The harder the Alarmists try ...

[valkhorn]

Spoken like a true Tea Partier, reincarnated from the 19th century order of "Know Nothingers"

Don't forget the revisionist histories of Saint Jefferson, Saint Washington, and Saint Reagan.

[Strongbad]

Don't forget the revisionist histories of Saint Jefferson, Saint Washington, and Saint Reagan.

:arrowhead:

I'm glad Government Re-Education Camps (formerly known as Public Schools) did a good job with you.

What in the heck does the Tea party or two of our Founding Fathers, along with a President born over 100 years after them, have anything to do with this topic??

Prediction: Global Avg. temperature anomaly will continue to drop through the winter. Carbon will continue to be pumped into our atmosphere. And in 12 years, you will still have no grasp of reality.

[valkhorn]

:arrowhead:

I'm glad Government Re-Education Camps (formerly known as Public Schools) did a good job with you.

What in the heck does the Tea party or two of our Founding Fathers, along with a President born over 100 years after them, have anything to do with this topic??

Prediction: Global Avg. temperature anomaly will continue to drop through the winter. Carbon will continue to be pumped into our atmosphere. And in 12 years, you will still have no grasp of reality.

It's mentioned because you post from sources that are from the far right or from the tea party, or outlets of NewsCorp (the WSJ). I've not yet seen you post anything from an actual reputable source.

The tea party has a history of re-writing the histories of the founding fathers and Ronald Reagan.

[Strongbad]

It's mentioned because you post from sources that are from the far right or from the tea party, or outlets of NewsCorp (the WSJ). I've not yet seen you post anything from an actual reputable source.

The tea party has a history of re-writing the histories of the founding fathers and Ronald Reagan.

Gotcha. My sources are tea partiers...Hmmm, guessing you are discriminating simply because something has "liberty" in it's name. You haven't actually looked up the scientists nor their backgrounds, nor the backgrounds of the editors or journalists. You just saw one word and associated it with Right Wing. I am terribly sorry for wasting my time with you. Best to not engage any further, lest you reference the Uni-bomber or Lindsay Lohan next.

[valkhorn]

:arrowhead:

I'm glad Government Re-Education Camps (formerly known as Public Schools) did a good job with you.

What in the heck does the Tea party or two of our Founding Fathers, along with a President born over 100 years after them, have anything to do with this topic??

Prediction: Global Avg. temperature anomaly will continue to drop through the winter. Carbon will continue to be pumped into our atmosphere. And in 12 years, you will still have no grasp of reality.

"continue to drop"?

2011:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ (for August)

2010:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

2009:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091208_globalstats.html

We also established that 1998 to 2008 was relatively stable, and prior to 1998 there has been significant warming.

Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?

What drop are you talking about?

[tacoman25]

It's mentioned because you post from sources that are from the far right or from the tea party, or outlets of NewsCorp (the WSJ). I've not yet seen you post anything from an actual reputable source.

The WSJ isn't a reputable source? You realize that many news outlets are operated by people with varying party affiliations and political leanings, right?

[valkhorn]

Gotcha. My sources are tea partiers...Hmmm, guessing you are discriminating simply because something has "liberty" in it's name. You haven't actually looked up the scientists nor their backgrounds, nor the backgrounds of the editors or journalists. You just saw one word and associated it with Right Wing. I am terribly sorry for wasting my time with you. Best to not engage any further, lest you reference the Uni-bomber or Lindsay Lohan next.

No.

I looked at who owned that site as soon as you posted it. Sweet Liberty is ran by Jackie Patru - who is a no-name schill for the Tea Party.

[valkhorn]

The WSJ isn't a reputable source? You realize that many news outlets are operated by people with varying party affiliations and political leanings, right?

Op-eds generally aren't reliable anywhere. That's why I don't like to use news articles. I like to use actual science.

[skierinvermont]

Do you have qualifications to comment on AGW, and if so, how do they differ from all those on the list??? Thanks!

No of course I do not have the qualifications to make up my own climate theories. Which is why I don't do that. My qualifications are no worse than anybody on that list, with the exception of perhaps Richard Lindzen.

[bobbutts]

The number that sticks out to me is 33% believe that there has been warming, but that AGW was not a factor in that (Natural patterns). That's a large number of people who believe observations, but directly reject the core of AGW theory, no?

[PhillipS]

The number that sticks out to me is 33% believe that there has been warming, but that AGW was not a factor in that (Natural patterns). That's a large number of people who believe observations, but directly reject the core of AGW theory, no?

Well, considering the resources being spent on the FUD campaign (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by those interests making over a billion dollars a week in profits, I guess it's not too surprising. Anything that leads to weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is a direct threat to their bottom line. Follow the money.

[Quixotic1]

I'd be more interested in seeing a poll regarding AGW among mets.

People typically go where they're told to go when uninformed.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Anyone else notice there are now three sides here.

there are two sides and something scary.

There is skeptics and lesser skeptics(alarmists). But that is bull-crap because I am skeptic a well. Just to a different degree.

Those two groups usually have many different posters with many different personality types and so on.

The third group is literally the same poster. The same topics. same style. It's quite amazing.

the biggest red flag is the lack of shame. People here get heated and can get upset when they are wrong. But there is a personal level of self embarrassment that most people won't cross. It is a bit weird that the third group not only has no line. They all take it to the extremes. Most of them have filled out no profile info, except maybe a city. And push the most absurd crap knowing they have nothing to prove.

They also have said far to many similar insults to people....and far to many insults period.

Regardless of exactly what is going on. I think some sort of standards need to be established here. I am not talking about censoring science. But this is absurd. And it is not science. It's as if Exxon is paying someone to sit at a computer 24/7 to sabotage something. Or one nut jub trying to take down this forum by himself.

People are not like this. Something is up.

[PhillipS]

Anyone else notice there are now three sides here.

there are two sides and something scary.

There is skeptics and lesser skeptics(alarmists). But that is bull-crap because I am skeptic a well. Just to a different degree.

Those two groups usually have many different posters with many different personality types and so on.

The third group is literally the same poster. The same topics. same style. It's quite amazing.

the biggest red flag is the lack of shame. People here get heated and can get upset when they are wrong. But there is a personal level of self embarrassment that most people won't cross. It is a bit weird that the third group not only has no line. They all take it to the extremes. Most of them have filled out no profile info, except maybe a city. And push the most absurd crap knowing they have nothing to prove.

They also have said far to many similar insults to people....and far to many insults period.

Regardless of exactly what is going on. I think some sort of standards need to be established here. I am not talking about censoring science. But this is absurd. And it is not science. It's as if Exxon is paying someone to sit at a computer 24/7 to sabotage something. Or one nut jub trying to take down this forum by himself.

People are not like this. Something is up.

Friv - you are right. Something is up. But don't assume that the repetitive denier comments come from live people. Hiring shills to flood message threads is so 'Old School' - now they can use software. Ever heard the terms "Sock Puppet' or 'Denier-bot'? Here is a Climate Progress column on the latest trend from the Denialist camp. And here's a brief excerpt:

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated “persona management” software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Persona management entails not just the deconfliction of persona artifacts such as names, email addresses, landing pages, and associated content. It also requires providing the human actors technology that takes the decision process out of the loop when using a specific persona. For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.

I find all this pretty disturbing. Anyway, the next time you find yourself in an exchange with a commenter you feel is devoid of intelligence or humanity - you're probably right. My suggestion is to keep writing your posts for the larger audience. If you stop posting then the denial-bots win.

[Quixotic1]

The WSJ isn't a reputable source? You realize that many news outlets are operated by people with varying party affiliations and political leanings, right?

I don't know about reputable but it definitely has a dog in the fight.

[LithiaWx]

Anyone else notice there are now three sides here.

there are two sides and something scary.

There is skeptics and lesser skeptics(alarmists). But that is bull-crap because I am skeptic a well. Just to a different degree.

Those two groups usually have many different posters with many different personality types and so on.

The third group is literally the same poster. The same topics. same style. It's quite amazing.

the biggest red flag is the lack of shame. People here get heated and can get upset when they are wrong. But there is a personal level of self embarrassment that most people won't cross. It is a bit weird that the third group not only has no line. They all take it to the extremes. Most of them have filled out no profile info, except maybe a city. And push the most absurd crap knowing they have nothing to prove.

They also have said far to many similar insults to people....and far to many insults period.

Regardless of exactly what is going on. I think some sort of standards need to be established here. I am not talking about censoring science. But this is absurd. And it is not science. It's as if Exxon is paying someone to sit at a computer 24/7 to sabotage something. Or one nut jub trying to take down this forum by himself.

People are not like this. Something is up.

Friv - you are right. Something is up. But don't assume that the repetitive denier comments come from live people. Hiring shills to flood message threads is so 'Old School' - now they can use software. Ever heard the terms "Sock Puppet' or 'Denier-bot'? Here is a Climate Progress column on the latest trend from the Denialist camp. And here's a brief excerpt:

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated “persona management” software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Persona management entails not just the deconfliction of persona artifacts such as names, email addresses, landing pages, and associated content. It also requires providing the human actors technology that takes the decision process out of the loop when using a specific persona. For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.

I find all this pretty disturbing. Anyway, the next time you find yourself in an exchange with a commenter you feel is devoid of intelligence or humanity - you're probably right. My suggestion is to keep writing your posts for the larger audience. If you stop posting then the denial-bots win.

Conspiracy Theories ftl.... You guys are not helping your cause with this, both of these posts are kinda of crazy.

[valkhorn]

Conspiracy Theories ftl.... You guys are not helping your cause with this, both of these posts are kinda of crazy.

It's not as crazy as you think. I don't know about 'bots' posting, but I do know there are organizations that try to organize meetings with Tea Party members, give them specific talking points, and tell them to go out on internet forums to spread them. They tell them what forums to go to, how to find other forums, how to post the talking points, how to not really argue them, and to pretty much spread misinformation.

I don't know any organizations on the left that do this, although there could be a few. I do know it does exist on the right, though.

[LakeEffectKing]

Conspiracy Theories ftl.... You guys are not helping your cause with this, both of these posts are kinda of crazy.

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.

[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.

It was just yesterday or the day before there were multiple posters on this board saying in a nutshell that unless someone is a climate scientist then they do not deserve an opinion on the subject and common sense was not something the average person should use and should not be respected. Comments like those don't help their cause. There are plenty of intelligent people who can look at all the data from both sides and form an educated opinion. It does not take a degree in climate science to look objectively at everything and form an opinion. The science is not settled and deniers are not all dumb.

[bobbutts]

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.

strongly agree with the bold which is very much on topic for this thread

I think the statement about the alarmists' tactics hurting their cause is on point regardless of where people fall in the rest of the debate.

[LakeEffectKing]

strongly agree with the bold which is very much on topic for this thread

I think the statement about the alarmists' tactics hurting their cause is on point regardless of where people fall in the rest of the debate.

The AGW folk are at a disadvantage, now, but it is because of the tact they took over the last 2 decades....they CAN'T point to a time when there was "debate"...they squashed it! And this point states nothing about one's view on AGW....it is a working (poorly constructed, I might add) hypothesis that certainly has some observable evidence, and some basic physics in support of it....but to claim "debate over" or "settled science" or attacking everyone who isn't on the train at every turn is just a very poor PR move that will lead to the slow death of the movement....hopefully, thereafter, science can recover and learn from the horrible communication/conveyence mistakes of the past! If we do have a major AGW problem as we move forward, much of the blame WILL lay at the hands of those panicing folks and their message of doom.

At a point of crisis, one should remain calm.....not go hysterically bezerk!! And as it is now, like it or not, that is the face of the AGW movement at this time.

[WeatherRusty]

Conspiracy Theories ftl.... You guys are not helping your cause with this, both of these posts are kinda of crazy.

What is the cause? My goal is simply to enjoy the give and take on this forum and share what I have learned with the greater audience. I speak mostly to the fundamental scientific basis for AGW.

I am not under any illusion that I am going to change the world or even change minds. I do hope to enlighten those with an honest desire to learn the fundamental physical basis for the science. It is up to them to corroborate what I have to say through official sources.

There does exist a conspiracy. The science is up against a vast effort to denounce it's findings. I leave it to you to decide which side of the fence the conspiracy resides.

[WeatherRusty]

It was just yesterday or the day before there were multiple posters on this board saying in a nutshell that unless someone is a climate scientist then they do not deserve an opinion on the subject and common sense was not something the average person should use and should not be respected. Comments like those don't help their cause. There are plenty of intelligent people who can look at all the data from both sides and form an educated opinion. It does not take a degree in climate science to look objectively at everything and form an opinion. The science is not settled and deniers are not all dumb.

Who are the arrogant ones here? Why the hell specialize in a science and spend years in educational preparation if only to be told your expertise is not needed?

The numbers you refer to tell you nothing of the scientific basis for AGW. You are ignorant if you think they do.

[PhillipS]

Conspiracy Theories ftl.... You guys are not helping your cause with this, both of these posts are kinda of crazy.

Simply reporting reality isn't fostering a conspiracy theory. And it is reality that there is a very well organized and funded campaign to spread misinformation about the facts and seriousness of climate change. This campaign is amply documented. The book Merchants of Doubt is a good report on this campaign. But don't take my word for it. Or anybody's word for it. Open your mind and go study the facts for yourself. There is a lot of information available.

Since conspiracy theories are completely off-topic, I'll close with a question - there are two hypothetical conspiracies,

(1) that the climate change theory is a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of researchers in numerous scientific disciplines, in dozens of countries, all systematically fudging climate data for well over a century without a single defector or 'smoking gun' master plan coming to light. And this conspiracy removes awkward evidence, like the glaciers in Glacier National Park, that might thwart their plans.

(2) a small clique of families and multinational corporations that control an almost unimaginable amount of wealth are doing everything they can to preserve and extend that wealth, including lobbying politicians and setting up and funding a campaign of misinformation.

My question is - which hypothetical conspiracy seems more plausible to you?

[WeatherRusty]

The AGW folk are at a disadvantage, now, but it is because of the tact they took over the last 2 decades....they CAN'T point to a time when there was "debate"...they squashed it! And this point states nothing about one's view on AGW....it is a working (poorly constructed, I might add) hypothesis that certainly has some observable evidence, and some basic physics in support of it....but to claim "debate over" or "settled science" or attacking everyone who isn't on the train at every turn is just a very poor PR move that will lead to the slow death of the movement....hopefully, thereafter, science can recover and learn from the horrible communication/conveyence mistakes of the past! If we do have a major AGW problem as we move forward, much of the blame WILL lay at the hands of those panicing folks and their message of doom.

At a point of crisis, one should remain calm.....not go hysterically bezerk!! And as it is now, like it or not, that is the face of the AGW movement at this time.

The first sentence is totally irrational. The second is hyperbole. The third is your your myopic opinion.

I just lost a lot of respect for you. Sorry.

[PhillipS]

The AGW folk are at a disadvantage, now, but it is because of the tact they took over the last 2 decades....they CAN'T point to a time when there was "debate"...they squashed it! And this point states nothing about one's view on AGW....it is a working (poorly constructed, I might add) hypothesis that certainly has some observable evidence, and some basic physics in support of it....but to claim "debate over" or "settled science" or attacking everyone who isn't on the train at every turn is just a very poor PR move that will lead to the slow death of the movement....hopefully, thereafter, science can recover and learn from the horrible communication/conveyence mistakes of the past! If we do have a major AGW problem as we move forward, much of the blame WILL lay at the hands of those panicing folks and their message of doom.

At a point of crisis, one should remain calm.....not go hysterically bezerk!! And as it is now, like it or not, that is the face of the AGW movement at this time.

Could you please provide supporting evidence for your assertion? With the availability of the internet how can any solid evidence or robust competing theories be squashed? The simpler explanation for the lack of viable alternative to AGW is that the science embodied in the set of theories that make up AGW are pretty good and solid. Of course there is room for refinement through additional research, but to knee-jerk denial is closer to hysteria than accepting and dealing with a looming crisis.

[LithiaWx]

Simply reporting reality isn't fostering a conspiracy theory. And it is reality that there is a very well organized and funded campaign to spread misinformation about the facts and seriousness of climate change. This campaign is amply documented. The book Merchants of Doubt is a good report on this campaign. But don't take my word for it. Or anybody's word for it. Open your mind and go study the facts for yourself. There is a lot of information available.

Since conspiracy theories are completely off-topic, I'll close with a question - there are two hypothetical conspiracies,

(1) that the climate change theory is a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of researchers in numerous scientific disciplines, in dozens of countries, all systematically fudging climate data for well over a century without a single defector or 'smoking gun' master plan coming to light. And this conspiracy removes awkward evidence, like the glaciers in Glacier National Park, that might thwart their plans.

(2) a small clique of families and multinational corporations that control an almost unimaginable amount of wealth are doing everything they can to preserve and extend that wealth, including lobbying politicians and setting up and funding a campaign of misinformation.

My question is - which hypothetical conspiracy seems more plausible to you?

I think once you make a claim like you did about bots and computers making posts against AGW you are in conspiracy land. I do understand you have folks on both sides spreading misinformation but computer programs with personas? That is too much...

Friv - you are right. Something is up. But don't assume that the repetitive denier comments come from live people. Hiring shills to flood message threads is so 'Old School' - now they can use software. Ever heard the terms "Sock Puppet' or 'Denier-bot'? Here is a Climate Progress column on the latest trend from the Denialist camp. And here's a brief excerpt:

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated “persona management” software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Persona management entails not just the deconfliction of persona artifacts such as names, email addresses, landing pages, and associated content. It also requires providing the human actors technology that takes the decision process out of the loop when using a specific persona. For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.

I find all this pretty disturbing. Anyway, the next time you find yourself in an exchange with a commenter you feel is devoid of intelligence or humanity - you're probably right. My suggestion is to keep writing your posts for the larger audience. If you stop posting then the denial-bots win.

Yeah, I think you went too far and it's a conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard to believe that there are skeptics and for valid reasons about AGW. There is data and facts that don't match up with AGW. Imo could AGW be a reality, sure but do I think that it is a fact and things are settled. No I don't. I don't feel like we know enough about climate change to make an assumption that AGW is the cause of our warming. It could be normal oscillations in weather patterns for all we know We need more data, we don't have enough years of data to say science is settled.

What is wrong with wanting more data before making a claim that something is settled? I say we slowly cut back on Greenhouse gasses in the mean time but don't panic and collect more and more data along the way.

[WeatherRusty]

I think once you make a claim like you did about bots and computers making posts against AGW you are in conspiracy land. I do understand you have folks on both sides spreading misinformation but computer programs with personas? That is too much...

Yeah, I think you went too far and it's a conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard to believe that there are skeptics and for valid reasons about AGW. There is data and facts that don't match up with AGW. Imo could AGW be a reality, sure but do I think that it is a fact and things are settled. No I don't. I don't feel like we know enough about climate change to make an assumption that AGW is the cause of our warming. It could be normal oscillations in weather patterns for all we know We need more data, we don't have enough years of data to say science is settled.

AGW is not based on historical data. It is based in physics. Warming is what we expect based on physics, not by how many years it warms or cools.

[bobbutts]

Could you please provide supporting evidence for your assertion? With the availability of the internet how can any solid evidence or robust competing theories be squashed? The simpler explanation for the lack of viable alternative to AGW is that the science embodies in the set of theories that make up AGW are pretty good and solid. Of course there is room for refinement through additional research, but to knee-jerk denial is closer to hysteria than accepting and dealing with a looming crisis.

[Gore] was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions."I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

not only does Gore refuse to debate the science, he refuses to even talk about putting this into perspective vs. other issues

[WeatherRusty]

[/size][/size][/color]

not only does Gore refuse to debate the science, he refuses to even talk about putting this into perspective vs. other issues

[/font]

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?