“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics”

September 12, 2011 | Filed under Al Gore,Global Warming | Posted by Rick Rice

And Al Gore’s going to be the apparent weapon of choice:

Former Vice President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.
“24 Hours of Reality” will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore’s message.
“There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change,” Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event’s UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.
“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from.”

Isn’t it interesting that very few will explore where it is that the Church of Chicken Little gets their funding? And more interesting that those funding sources are never seen to be a reason to cast doubt on the movement?

It’s a line of questioning I’d like to see taken up with Mr. Restorick and those of his ilk.

I won’t hold my breath.

Shortlink:

Posted by Rick Rice on September 12, 2011.
Filed under Al Gore, Global Warming.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Pingback: Brutally Honest
Anonymous
“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics” This is what they do. This is how they roll.
Anonymous
Did ja notice there will STILL be no debate. There is only one side, after all, and why should we allow the folks who are wrong to have a say? Their minds are made up, don’t confuse them with facts!

Boyd Garrett
Why would we need debate? Just present the science, without emotion, without claims of consensus, just give us the evidence that tells us that human activity will make our planet uninhabitable, so that we should further wreck our economy trying to preserve the status quo. We should be able to reproduce the same evidence independently, showing their processes and conclusions to be accurate.
I’m not holding my breath, even though that’s going to further ruin the environment by cramming even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Anonymous
CO2 is an essential and necessary gas, all plant life would cease to grow without it. Historical evidence demonstrates concentrations up to ten times todays levels have occurred repeatedly in earths past, and no thermal runaway having occurred. If you have any ideas on how to live a 21st century life with 19th century technology, society as a whole awaits your wisdom with baited breath.

Boyd Garrett
I see my sarcasm was lost on you. I’ll try to make it clearer in the future.

Anonymous
Yeah, like I’d give control of any account of mine, least of all Facebook, so they could disseminate information to my friends and God knows who else for 24 hours. Really, what could possibly go wrong? Just how insane is Owlgore and his minions of climate crazed space monkeys to think I’d allow him to disseminate his climate change BS in my name?
Anonymous
Sounds like Albert is in PANIC! mode. And who will tune in, besides the lemmings who follow him now?
Hey Al! How’s your “charkra’?
Anonymous
Gee, Al. I can think of nothing better to change skeptics’ minds than to bombard them for 24 hours with your latest temper tantrum.
Idiot.
Bob Armstrong
98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.
98 percent of moronic asshats don’t.
Which group are you in?

Anonymous
Oh, good. I’m glad we’re discussing the science.

http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
Ain’t that just like spongebob racepants the dirty hippy!

Anonymous
You must be among the 2% hopelessly stuck on stoopid…
Have some grape
Anonymous
I’m in the group that understands that science does not involve 1)bullying people into believing your point, 2)hiding results that do not support your point, and 3)brushing apparent research dishonesty under the rug.

Anonymous
I’m in the group that thinks Al should practice what he preaches and until he does I’m not interested in anything he has to say. If the climate change community wants to have some credibility they should tell this Ahole to stop helping them.

Anonymous
I believe that your comment is un-American, Bob. In fact, I think the science is settled on that issue.

Bob Armstrong
98 percent of Climate Scientists agree with Al Gore.
It’s settled.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JXCYWOWJRMMB3P75ZMGIJZH6PA Steve Funston
And most of those don’t attribute extreme weather to climate change. They also don’t think that polar bears are going extinct or that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. But you and Algore do. Now, who’s the asshat? That’s right. You. And BTW, you warmists have already lost this debate. I suggest you now get back to DKos before your feelings get hurt. You’re welcome.
retired.military
I am in the smart group that says climate change happens. It is a product of many things the least of which is man made global warming. The sun and nature has a much greater impact on climate than man.
How is that 10k square foot home of Al’s doing.
Has he taken any 200 yard SUV rides lately to go from one place to another to give a speech.
retired.military
Isnt this the year that Al Gore said that there would no ice at the North Pole?
“Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.”
This prediction was made in 2008 so Al still has 2 more years to milk money out of the likes of you Bob.

Anonymous
Retired military, are you deliberately misinformed or just content with misinofrming others ? We are certainly getting much closer to Gore´s prediction’
Sea ice is now almost completely gone from the channels of the Northwesassage, with the exception of a small strip of ice across a stretch of the Parry Channel. The southern route (Amunden’s Route) is ice free. According to the Canadian Ice Service, sea ice extent in the western Parry Channel is now the lowest at this time of year since record keeping began in 1966 and very little multi-year ice remains
.

http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous
And yet, the same thing was happening in the late ’20s, early ’30s. It’s almost like a cycle or something… isn’t that strange?

Anonymous
The only thing I could find to support your statement is a Norwegian consulate’s anecdoctal report,in a newspaper circa 1922.. Climate scientist since the 1920´s, have been keeping track of Arctic temperatures and show no such trend or finding! Is this the way conservatives arrive at all their opinions?
http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous
Steve -
Your link’s busted – try http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/090611.html
Saw some links to old Popular Science magazines…
Round trip through the NW passage…
http://books.google.com/books?id=MiEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=popular+science+northwest+passage&hl=en&ei=5KRvTqHMGYbu0gGThKiZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA
The ice lessens, the ice builds again.
http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm
What was the significance of St Roch?First vessel to sail the Northwest Passage from west to east (1940 – 1942) First vessel to complete the Northwest Passage in one season (1944), also making it the first to use the more northerly, deeper route and to complete the Passage in both directionsAlso, saw some links a few years ago (haven’t been able to find since) which were articles from the ’20s and ’30s forecasting that the Northwest Passage would be clear in a few years, since Arctic Ice was dropping in its extent.As I said – the planet has cycles. The ice lessens, the ice will build again.
First vessel to sail the Northwest Passage from west to east (1940 – 1942) First vessel to complete the Northwest Passage in one season (1944), also making it the first to use the more northerly, deeper route and to complete the Passage in both directionsAlso, saw some links a few years ago (haven’t been able to find since) which were articles from the ’20s and ’30s forecasting that the Northwest Passage would be clear in a few years, since Arctic Ice was dropping in its extent.
As I said – the planet has cycles. The ice lessens, the ice will build again.

Anonymous
OK. I’ll see your study and raise you this study published in Science magazine:
“For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen.”
And what do AGWA cultists such as yourself provide as an explanation? Neolothic coal plants?
“Team leader Svend Funder… says, ‘Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.’”
Really, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy for a lefty troll. Read that last quoted sentence again. It says “This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account.” That, my friends, should be written on the tombstone of the Church of AGWA. It is the core of their problem, i.e. they develop GIGO computer models that “do not take in other factors sufficiently.” Why? Simple. The majority of grant money only flows if you toe the party line.

Anonymous
Isn’t this the organization that blackballed Born (something or other) touted as one of the top climate scientists on the planet because he dared to say this stuff was so much hokum, that the effort ought to be spent on honest to goodness pollution problems instead?(usually be socialist nations -not capitalist)

Anonymous
“98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.”
Links.
Right now.
Or STFU, troll.

Anonymous
it takes three seconds to look it up. Normally the figure is 97% I can’t waste¨the time sending this survey. for the upteenth time on this blog. I have decided most of you are just like truthers or birthers and not interested in facts because they make no effect on your medieval opinions, anyways..

Anonymous
Just like always Steve you’re interested in some facts. For me, my problem isn’t so much with being good caretakers of the planet, it’s the idea that people like Al Gore get rich off this scheme while preaching at me to reduce my tiny carbon foot print. The climate change community is setting this up as a binary argument, it’s not binary.

Anonymous
Peole get rich off war or peace dividends, the same as climate warmers, though I don know many scientists who go into science to make money. Seems to me they would more likely go to work for the offshore oil companies or big tobacco who are funding Heartland Institute and others denying AGW. Of course Gore is a hypocrite! He is scion of a majo plutocratic political family, but the majority are just hard working scientists or ordinary people. Your side has plenty of advocates who have gotten very rich off the burning fossil fuels, or politicians who have taken their campaign contributions from these industries.
Anonymous
You just proved my point Steve by saying my side…. I’m not on a side. Here’s my problem Steve I don’t know the science but my instincts tell me to be very skeptical of anyone who feels they have to force their beliefs on me, I’m skeptical of scientist who say one thing when they think people are listening and something else when they don’t. I’m skeptical when the first reaction to any contray study is to question the funding sources not the study. I’m also a little concerned that the US should be the target here, we’ve done more to reduce our polutants than anyone. Seems to me the focus is on the US because we have money not because we’re the problem. How about this Steve, let’s just all agree the world is going to end, no more funding for Climate Studies all the money has to go to clean energy development, no more carbon off sets (what ever the hell that is) no more measuring ice levels. How do you suppose that would go over?
http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous
“but my instincts tell me to be very skeptical of anyone who feels they have to force their beliefs on me,”
Bing-fucking-O there. If the science is solid, it’ll stand up on its own. Computer models aren’t reality – which is something that doesn’t seem to register with the ‘science is settled’ crowd. You can write a program that consistently adds any values you want to the data you input – that doesn’t mean that what you get out of the program bears any resemblance to reality.
“I’m skeptical when the first reaction to any contray study is to question the funding sources not the study. ”
That’s not at all surprising with the econuts – the concept that anyone would be against something so self-evidently true and right (because it FEELS right to them) doesn’t register. It CAN’T be because the science is questionable – so someone must be paying them.

Anonymous
Nice try Steve. Nice fail, too.
I responded to this claptrap link below in the thread.

Bob Armstrong
>>”Rodney G. Graves liked this ”
Look – moron on moron love… aint’ it sweet.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372
climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field
support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that
of the convinced researchers.
Now go get my luggage, boy – and be quick about it.
Anonymous
SpongeBob, you have yet to respond to my challenge.
Post a link to you claim that “98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.”
Crickmore did not do that. Can you?
Instead of being your usual immature, insulting, and deserving-of-being-whalloped-with-the-troll-hammer self, that is.

Bob Armstrong
lol – Sky captian has his helmet latched a little too tight.
Over the past few days, fact-checkers have been kept busy debunking this statement
from Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), on why he doesn’t believe that humans
are heating the planet: “I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even
daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original
idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to
change.”It’s not a tricky argument to dismiss.
In 2010, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey
of 1,372 climate researchers, finding that 97 to 98 percent of those
publishing in the field said they believe humans are causing global
warming. That’s the same majority that existed in a similar 2009 survey. Dissenters do exist, the PNAS
study found, but “the relative climate expertise and scientific
prominence of the researchers unconvinced … are substantially below that
of the convinced researchers.” Either way, the ranks of dissenters
don’t appear to be swelling”
Of curse Perry lied. He’s a Texas Governor – it comes with the territory.
SkyCap – he’s just an idiot.

Anonymous
Bob,
Umm, whatinthehell does Rick Perry have to do with the fact that you can’t back up your claim?
Oh,. that’s right – nothing.
So you resort to name calling.
Nice fail.

jim_m
98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.
This is what happens when you let idiots talk about science. Yes most climate scientists will say that the earth has gotten warmer. I think it would be very difficult to find one that would deny that. As to whether or not it is caused by man there is a lot of debate. Warmists seek to deny that any debate does exist or even allow anyone to think that it could exist.
The problem with warmism are many. The notion that CO2 is the cause of global warming is problematic because it comprises such a small fraction of the atmosphere and there are many other constituents that do more to cause the retention of heat in the atmosphere such as water vapor, which is much more abundant and holds far more heat in. Of course he problem with the historical record that the earth was far warmer in the past is a problem as well as the evidence that the CO2 content of he atmosphere has been significantly higher in the past.
All these facts of science are necessarily overlooked by the warmist because they decided what the result was before they even started collecting evidence.
And one last thing: Science is rarely if ever settled. That is the nature of science. Warmism is about religion. There are few religions more intolerant than warmism. Perhaps radical islam. But only perhaps.

Anonymous
Of course, jim_m the co2 levels and temperature have been significantly higher in the past!!!! about 5 degrees Celsius. Evey climate scientist know this…. Are you brain dead or just obtuse?, But these global warming periods took millions of years, in the case of the Createacus Houthouse period, 146 million years ago and thousands in the Palecocene, PETM, 56 million years ago. The modern wamring period is happening at a much more alarming rate of merely decades to hundreds of years. We won´t be able to able to adapt like the dinosaurs…of the past ..
Bob Armstrong
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372
climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field
support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that
of the convinced researchers.
There’s no debate among climate scientitsts – there’s a 98% consensus.
The only thing “growing” around here are the lies of folks like SkyCaptain and JimM – and the growing gap between Rodney Graves ears.
Quick, Graves, one of your one line troll speeches please!

Anonymous
So they didn’t actually ASK the “climate researchers”, eh?
Rodney Graves, could I entreat you to get out the Troll Hammer?
Thank you.

Anonymous
That, and they weighted based on number of published articles. So the more you publish, even if it was utter crap, makes you more prominent and important a voice.

Anonymous
I’m in the 98% that thinks demagoguing an opposing view is the first sign of a losing arguement. Why don’t we have a more civil discourse on the subject?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran
Scientists don’t have to fake their results, or pressure journals not to publish papers with dissenting views, or dump their original data, or create misleading graphics, or violate the law to avoid disclosing their emails proving they are phonies.
Filthy hippy – go take a bath, but do use cold water so no fossils are killed in reducing your grime, mmmkay?
PBunyan
98% of Jim Jones’ followers believed the shit he was spewing too.
PBunyan
98% of Jim Jones’ followers believed the shit he was spewing too.

Anonymous
He is the last person to realize Gorebull warming is a farce.

http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
I don’t know about being “the last,” but spongebob racepants is definitely in the “bitter clinger” category when it comes to the church of algore.

Bob Armstrong
Aww, look Rodney. When you spew bullshit people like you.

Pingback: An Inconvenient Day? Al Gore Preps 24-Hour Global Warming Broadcast – Fox News
Anonymous
I wonder if Albert appreciates the support of the filthy hippie voting block?
Anonymous
this all because Al is black, it’s straight up racist…

http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
@Jwb10001:disqus ,
You forgot to close the /spongebobracepants tag…

davidt
Manbearpig on the comeback trail.
retired.military
Al Gore and his global warming church is all about the green. Money that is.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/green-subsidies-breeding-ground-corruption
Al Gore acolyte Cathy Zoi was Obama’s assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy while her husband was an executive at a company that received direct subsidies from the Obama administration and profited from the Cash-for-Caulkers bill Zoi’s division implemented. Zoi has since left DOE to run a clean-tech hedge fund owned in large part by Democratic mega-donor George Soros.
A group of Democratic operatives have formed an investment company called U.S. Renewable Energy Group, or US-REG, which seems to exist for the sake of buying green-tech companies, and then helping them get subsidies. In at least one case, US-REG appeared to be a U.S. beard for a Chinese company seeking U.S. dollars to make wind turbines in China.
The Department of Energy’s inspector general has repeatedly found that a loan program created by the 2005 energy bill and expanded by Obama’s stimulus falls short on transparency and accountability
Gee imagine that. Obama’s asst secratry for energy efficiency is married to an executive of a comany which recieved direct subsidies from who? Why Obama of course.
http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
Just what network will be airing Gore’s 24-hour AGW-athon? Will it be a network with good ratings?

retired.military
If it had good ratings before it wont have good ratings after.

Anonymous
“24 Hours of Reality” will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every
hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to
Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving
action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
–
Won’t that be a significant increase in Al’s carbon footprint?

http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
@LiberalNitemare:disqus asks:
Won’t that be a significant increase in Al’s carbon footprint?
Given that algore’s carbon footprint is even more vast than algore himself, not especially.

herddog505
sarahconnor2 – I’m in the group that understands that science does not involve 1)bullying people into believing your point, 2)hiding results that do not support your point, and 3)brushing apparent research dishonesty under the rug.
I can’t say (write?) “AMEN” enough to this post because it goes right to the core of the problem with AGW: the people who support it cry that they are on the side of “science”, yet what the “climate scientists” have done violates everything that scientists are SUPPOSED to learn to do long before they get their degrees. Science is not about “consensus”: it’s about facts, reproducibility, openness, and a relentless, skeptical search for truth. When you treat your data and models as classified information that nobody else can see, you’re not practicing science any more. When you have to browbeat people into supporting you with words like “consensus” and “deniers”, you’re not practicing science any more. When you refuse to openly debate your skeptics, you’re not practicing science any more. When you are reduced to begging people to let you take over their Twitter accounts so that you can use the accounts to smear your opponents, you’re not practicing science any more. When you claim that the science is “settled”, you sure as hell aren’t practicing science any more.

Anonymous
talk about bullying …In the Bush adminsitration, scientists were prohibited from mentioning global warming, and at Fox news, their correspondents were told in interviews they had had to show full disclaimers, when they were talking with climate scientists
sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon … less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was ‘on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.‘
Sammon emai” we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Anonymous
So Steve let’s apply that to any other situation, should a news organization take any OPINION as fact without either providing a contray opinion or stating there are conflicting opinons? What about war I mean everyone thought Sadam had WMD except for those people who didn’t should Fox news or CBS not provide those conflicting views? Would you be upset if CBS said “let’s refrain from ASSERTING Sadam has WMDs with out providing a counter point of view?

Anonymous
. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notion,” such as the temperature going up as facts” , not theory.. Look outside at the temperature, on thermometer that is fact, then divide into 365 days that isnt hard. to do to find the annual temperature. It is a simple arithmetic. Many of these tehrmometers are keept in both cities and rural areas.

http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous
And a temperature station that’s had a blacktop parking lot put in close to it (or around it) will show a good bit of ‘global warming’, while a properly maintained station out in the boonies will show no equivalent increase.
Which is more likely to give an accurate picture of the global temperature?
http://www.surfacestations.org – a survey of the US stations show 70% of the stations found have an error potential greater than 2C. Less than 8% have an error less than 1C.
Garbage in, garbage out. Instrument error, observational error, recording error. Plug it into a model that’s riddled with fudge factors designed to get a ‘correct’ output – and you don’t have science, you’ve got science fiction.

PBunyan
Those damn bullies, forcing reporters to be unbiased and tell the whole truth. How dare they!
herddog505
So, are you trying to claim that two wrongs make a right? Because people in the Bush admin allegedly “bullied” gorebots, it’s OK for gorebots to bully right back?
And if we’re going to play that game, didn’t Sammon do exactly what Jean-Francois Kerry* has called upon the media to do, i.e. NOT report certain points of view?
—-
(*) I have heard somewhere that he served in Vietnam.

Pingback: Washington Senator Maria Cantwell is Interfering With Alaskan Environmental Affairs » Blue Star Chronicles
Pingback: Al Gore Plans to Bore Us Into Acceptance of His Global Warming Theories » Blue Star Chronicles
Anonymous
“98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.”Links.Right now.Or STFU, troll.
I lied it took two seconds, not three seconds to find this report
Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate changeThis data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity

Anonymous
In 1500, 100% of astronomers agreed that the sun went around the earth. Their models had become extremely complex and were failing to match the observations. When Copernicus made his astronomical observations, the failure of the earth-centric models became unavoidably obvious. Galileo publicized those findings (along with his own observations) and developed a more complete model (helio-centric) that was consistent with the data.
The resistance to the new model was based on an inability of many to give up the concept that man was to be at the center of all things, which the helio-centric model required. Similarly, the AGW folks cannot accept that they cannot control (trough massive government) what is happening, despite the multiple failures of the AGW model predictions to match the available data, the known uncertainties of multiple major parameters used within the models, the dis-inclusion in the models of several phenomena known to affect climate, and the existence of alternative hypotheses that have been reasonably supported by experimental and observational data.
We are dealing with a quasi-religious mindset, as well as entrenched political and financial interests, that refuse to accept that their deficient, uncertain, and clearly erroneous (i.e., don’t match the data) AGW model predictions are not the revealed truth.
B.t.w., if the survey you cited happened to be taken from a sample of IPCC contributors or participants at an AGW conference, it would be surprising if the results were otherwise.
http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous
“Why does your editor, Jay Tea never comment on climete change/global warming?”
Perhaps he doesn’t want to? After all, there’s no obligation to blog on any particular topic.
If such a thing bothers you, why don’t you have your own blog? http://www.blogspot.com is ready when you are, and I’ll guarantee that I’ll read your blog at least once.
Anonymous
Steve, I’ve asked you before to not be any stupider than absolutely required.
1) I am nobody’s editor but my own. So cram it.
B) For me to write about something, it must meet two criteria: I must find it interesting, and I must think I can make it interesting to the readers.
III) I have written about the subject several times — search the site for “warmening.” I almost always use that as a derisive term for the evangelists (like you, apparently) on the subject. And I really haven’t felt the need to expound on the matter more since… well, this:
http://wizbangblog.com/2008/05/08/a-chilling-effect/
I raised two questions there, and haven’t heard any good answers since. You got any ideas?
J.

http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
His stupid knows no bounds.

Bob Armstrong
DNFTT

Anonymous
Said the bear that keeps trying to get into the tent…
http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
That’s not a bear, it’s just a filthy unwashed hippy by name of spongebob racepants.

Anonymous
Jay, I hadn’t realised or had forgotten you are a sceptic. Not surprised It does seem kind of a litmus test for conservative bloggers question 4 . Full disclosure I’.m not a scientist, it did not interest me much at college . it didn’t seem so controversial..to answer those two question why it is snowing more? Without looking up I have read that ..warmer air pattern are puching further northward meeding cold arctic air from Canda..therefore . Less hurricanes i don´t know many, or more are still occuring in the western Atalntic but turning northward and not hitting landfall ior it is effect from El Nino

Anonymous
But it’s not a litmus test for liberals right Steve….
Anonymous
Steve, that’s weather, not climate. There’s a difference — at least, that’s what we hear whenever the weather acts in a way that counters global warmening.
And I repeat my question: what sort of evidence would you take as against the theory of anthropogenic global warming? I see that the criteria for evidence backing it for you is “anything that I can make fit;” what would you consider as dispositive of the theory?
I could offer you examples regarding theories of evolution, gravity, and whatnot, if you need some help.
Bet you wish you hadn’t invited me into this discussion, huh?
J.
Anonymous
Bookmark that phrase folks:
Full disclosure I’.m not a scientist, it did not interest me much at college .

Anonymous
Regarding the report:
“The paper is based on the tireless
efforts of a climate blogger, self-described as “not an
academic,” who has been frustrated by those who don’t share his views on
climate change:
I’ve also grown all too familiar with the tiny minority of ‘climate
skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any
major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action. I’ve gotten pretty
fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and
online.”Now that’s the type of person we want publishing a paper like this, right Steve?

Anonymous
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1132-black-list-a-black-day-for-science.html
For more on the origin of Steve’s report

Anonymous
Your evidence is based on a team analyzing scientists’ published works and inferring where they must stand on the issue. They didn’t ask the scientists. They also weighted the study based on how prolific the writing a given scientist was. That is, the quantity of the publication counted more than the quality.
From one of the dissenting articles kindly linked at the same hosting site:
In the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument, the characteristics, qualities, or failings of adversaries rather than the merits of their case are argued. Here, the authors addressed the worth of CC critics (and agnostics) as scientists rather than the validity of their science (1). Regarding purely scientific questions, it may be justified to discount nonexperts. However, here, dissenters included established climate researchers. The article undermined their expert standing and then, extrapolated expertise to the more personal credibility. Using these methods to portray certain researchers as not credible and, by implication, to be ignored is highly questionable. Tarring them as individuals by group metrics is unwarranted.

Anonymous
Reply to O’Neil and Boycoff I think was the reply of the authors to the dissenting article authors (your link didn’t come through) to the study you were referring to.

Anonymous
Bodenstein
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full

Anonymous
Nice try Steve. Nice fail, too.
The quote is “98 percent of climate scientists agree with Al Gore.”"
The link you have indictaes 97% of scientists agree.
What’s missing? The word CLIMATE.
Thanks for playing (and losing).

Anonymous
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. from
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
Climate researchers= climate scientists

Anonymous
That’s NOT the link you posted earlier. The other one was from USA Today, and I did click on the article. The words “climate scientists” appear NOWHERE in the linked article.

I already debunked you thoroughly on it, AND NOW YOU MOVE THE GOALPOSTS by posting a different link???
Lousy debating tactic, fella.
Also proves you know you just lost the debate.
Oh, and I’ll see your 1,372 “Climate researchers” and raise you 31,847 scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Now, you want to move the goalposts some more, loser?

Bob Armstrong
You lost, moron. Quit whining about “moving the goalposts”
Your challenge has been answered numerous times. The facts are the facts – 98% is indeed the percentage of climate scientists in agreement on this issue.
That puts you squarely in the 98 percent of assholes who want to deny what science is telling us.
Crawl back into your cave, Republican.
Anonymous
No, Bob, you did not answer the question.
And your trollish name corralling is over the line.
Anonymous
Sky Captian , I am not responsible for what a subeditor in the USa Today wrote.They edited down or dumbed down the copy of the report linked in the US Today story. You can see it on my original link
China since 1990 to has had a 90 times , not 90%, rise in cars. They have over 100 million cities of at least one million citizens each. Where do you think that Co2 pollution goes?. I don.t know whether you have spent much time in a big city, but you are aware of the green house effect, especially at night, These are green house gases we are emititng at an unforseen rate. The previous great global warming periods took millions and thousands of years do reach 5 degrees more Celsius degrees caused by volcanic activity ,continents splitting apart. Scientists can capture the CO2 in ice and glacial deposits,and with carbon 14 dating it is very precise. We are only about 10 to 15% there yet but on pace, about 50 to 1000 times faster than those very intese global warming periods of past..
herddog505
The dog that didn’t bark…
Pretty clearly, the Red Chinese are not concerned about global warming, are they? If the science is “settled” and AGW is a GLOBAL threat, then why are the Chinese INCREASING their contribution to atmospheric CO2 at such a stupendous rate? Are the Chinese stupid? In the pay of Big Oil?
Or have Chinese scientists looked at the issue, rolled their eyes, and said, “This ‘global warming’ that the Americans and Euros are going on about is bullsh*t and no reason for us to keep our economy at some primitive, pre-industrial level. Of course, if the Americans and Euros want to kneecap their own economies, that only works to our advantage. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a coal-fired powerplant to design.”

Anonymous
The plan to link ‘extreme weather’ to AGW shows that the AGW proponents either do not understand or do not believe the models that they are promoting (and all they have is models – the data is against them). According to the models, the greatest warming will be at the poles. That means that the temperature gradient between low and high latitudes will be reduced. Since hurricanes/typhoons are a principal response of the atmosphere to the temperature gradient (they move heat from lower to higher latitudes), reducing the gradient will reduce, not enhance, extreme weather.
Anonymous
…. Isn’t it interesting that very few will explore where it is that the Church of Chicken Little gets its funding …?
That’s an easy one and already investigated and peer reviewed!
Ninety-eight per cent of them get their dough from government or from corrupt vested Mann-MadeGW-Industrial-Complex interests.
Think Solandra Inc, eg!
Anonymous
I just hope there is a dirty hippie or 2 around, to push me out of the ditch when the first blizzard hits.
Anonymous
I’m really looking forward the debates next year when they ask Obama gotcha questions like this one…. oh nevermind
herddog505
With regard to the whole “consensus” argument:
I actually AM a scientist (chemist). At no point in my education or work history has “well, X% of people believe it!” been a valid piece of data; I can only imagine the response I would have gotten from my professors had I written tripe like that in a lab report or my thesis. Chemists accept various pieces of data and theories about how chemical reactions occur NOT because of models and NOT because “everybody agrees” but rather because many different chemists conducting many different independent experiments find that the data are reproducible and that the theories adequately explain what they see. The same may be said of physicists, engineers, biologists, and any other “hard” scientists. The climate hoaxsters took some questionable data (including, in one notorious case, an article from a hiking magazine), fed it into some sooper-dooper-top-sekrit models that (who would have guessed?) magically matched their most dire predictions, systematically smeared their skeptics, and now claim the mantle of “scientists” because THEY ALL AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.
Ah, if only I could have done this in my classes: “But, Professor Smith, 95% of us agree that question #3 on your exam is unsolvable. Therefore, the consensus is that it IS unsolvable, and therefore no answer is the RIGHT answer. And as for Joe who CLAIMS that he got the ‘right’ answer… well, he’s just a denier who’s clearly interested in nothing more than his own grades, the selfish prick. Who are you going to believe? Him, or all of us?”
Anonymous
I hope the man stands, as he did in his propaganda movie, in front of a growing (calving ) glacier as the weight from the heavy ice forces the ends to break off into the sea as icebergs, and still claim the danged thing is melting.
If ever there was a failed shyster salesman it’s Gore. He was lifted from obscurity pouting from candidate failure by the political UN’s twisted ICCC to act as it’s shill, just as they unleashed their twenty plus years of eco-propaganda and manipulated “eco-facts” upon a gullible public. It was also fun watching them trying to keep up with the weather disasters at their annual international criminal “how are we gonna fool the rubes now?”conventions.”Nuclear winter” no it’s global warming” -no it’s snowing like crazy…er.,..we’ll cal lit climate change -that will do no matter what happens.
I personally love the left that tells us on the one hand that the murder of 53 million babies is just tissue and then it has the gaul to call us the deniers, because we don’t think rocks and trees should have the same rights as man who was made in the image of Nature’s God, and that the world is going to come to an end because of your lawnmower, while they expend more carbon than all 190 plus nations in their personnal recreation and lifestyles.
Too cold -too hot -too much acid – too much heat/cold-hurricanes floods, and two headed frogs. What a bunch of useful idiots for the Marxist machine.

“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics”

Live Blogroll

Wizbang Pop!

Popular Now

Socialize

Subscribe by Email

About

Ad Networks