Global Warming Thread XVI

[David Flick]

.
.New Thread...

So much for the myth of the vanishing Polar Bear:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers
By Paul Waldie

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.” Continue reading...

Over 500 interesting comments...

[David Flick]

BTW, I’m done reading Mann - it was informative mostly about the attacks on his personhood (wish it had more technical details). I have started Inhofe’s "The Greatest Hoax” -what a bunch of unsupported bluster is my comment so far - you would love it, in your own world of denialism.

I’ll go with the real experts/Mann vs ideologues/Inhofe.

Climategate Heads to Court
By S. Fred Singer

As a climate scientist, I am quite familiar with the background facts that Prof Michael E. Mann (now at Penn State U) so shamelessly distorts in his new book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.

First, the scientific background:

Mann's claim to fame derives from his contentious (and now thoroughly discredited) "hockeystick" research papers (in Nature 1998 and Geophysical Research Letters 1999). His idiosyncratic analysis of proxy (non-thermometer) data from sources like tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, etc. did away with the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP - 900-1200AD) and Little Ice Age (LIA - 1400-1800AD) -- documented by Prof. H.H. Lamb, the founding director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia U (CRU-EAU). Mann then asserted that the 20th century was the warmest in 1,000 years. His temperature graph, shaped like a hockeystick (on its side) immediately became the poster child of Al Gore and the IPCC, the U.N. science panel, to support their claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, soon found serious errors in Mann's analysis; they even showed that random data fed into Mann's algorithm would produce "hockeysticks." To add insult to injury, while the 2001 IPCC report used Mann's result to bolster its AGW claim, the most recent 2007 IPCC report no longer relies on it. Mann still defends it -- sort of -- and so do some of his uncritical supporters. We have had no word yet from Al Gore.

In his book, Mann distorts the e-mail record from the "Climategate" leak; those e-mails have not been altered or edited in any way. They document a conspiracy among a clique of British and U.S. climate scientists to control what goes into IPCC reports, and to keep contrary views by skeptics from being published in recognized science journals by manipulating the peer-review process. Continue reading...

[David Flick]

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .From Dr. Roy Spencer: Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong
.
.
.

[David Flick]

.
.

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!

By P Gosselin on 10. April 2012

Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.

…..unproven remarks…..not substantiated…..hundreds of well-known climate scientists…..tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief…..science is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”

Letters to the top don’t get any more blunt than that.

And how many tens of billions have these crackpots at GISS cost the taxpayers?

Here’s the letter:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. Continue reading letter & signatories...

[David Flick]

.
.Followup story on the NASA Scientists:

Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement

.
.

[David Flick]

.
.Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax. (red highlighting mine)

Economics Gurus Disagree!

In the 20 April issue of the Lexington Herald-Leader appeared a column by John Garen, an economics professor at the University of Kentucky, having to do with Earth Day as impacted by economics and vice versa. One suspected that in an ultraliberal paper owned by McClatchy the prof would lay the usual guilt trip on people who eat too much, drive too much and do anything else too much (or at all), consequently killing the earth in almost real time.

Didn’t happen, not even by a prof on the as-usual-liberal university campus! Garen went to some pain to explain that the market-based approach to the financial status of the country posed no threat to the economy or the earth, though the manmade-global-warming-climate-change thing has already been totally identified as a monstrous hoax by actual scientists/climatologists, the latest being part of the brain-trust at NASA. Indeed, he proved that entrepreneurial forces made things affordable, easily understandable since competition drives prices down, while government ownership and over-regulation do the opposite.

Garen said that the wide-open spaces (air, water), for instance, are not susceptible to ownership, while defined land areas are. When government over-regulates industry at great expense to producers (cap/trade) on the phony premise that it is somehow either protecting or appropriately changing the climate (atmospheric temperature) it incorporates huge overcharges for everything that’s bought and sold, with little or no effect on the environment other than locally, i.e., regulating landfills, negating pollution of streams, etc., legitimate concerns of the citizenry.

Both Al Gore and President Obama – recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize account saving the earth from a danger that never existed – have been main movers and shakers in the climate hoax, either by design or by stupidity. Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he would make electricity costs “skyrocket.” He’s made good on that promise, at least in Kentucky, where those rates are going up exponentially, even though the costly over-regulation of steam plants has not one iota of effect on the climate. So…the president either has meant to bankrupt power companies for reasons of his own or he has acted stupidly (his description of Cambridge policemen). Continue reading...

[KeithE]

.
.Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax. (red highlighting mine)

Economics Gurus Disagree!

In the 20 April issue of the Lexington Herald-Leader appeared a column by John Garen, an economics professor at the University of Kentucky, having to do with Earth Day as impacted by economics and vice versa. One suspected that in an ultraliberal paper owned by McClatchy the prof would lay the usual guilt trip on people who eat too much, drive too much and do anything else too much (or at all), consequently killing the earth in almost real time.

Didn’t happen, not even by a prof on the as-usual-liberal university campus! Garen went to some pain to explain that the market-based approach to the financial status of the country posed no threat to the economy or the earth, though the manmade-global-warming-climate-change thing has already been totally identified as a monstrous hoax by actual scientists/climatologists, the latest being part of the brain-trust at NASA. Indeed, he proved that entrepreneurial forces made things affordable, easily understandable since competition drives prices down, while government ownership and over-regulation do the opposite.

Garen said that the wide-open spaces (air, water), for instance, are not susceptible to ownership, while defined land areas are. When government over-regulates industry at great expense to producers (cap/trade) on the phony premise that it is somehow either protecting or appropriately changing the climate (atmospheric temperature) it incorporates huge overcharges for everything that’s bought and sold, with little or no effect on the environment other than locally, i.e., regulating landfills, negating pollution of streams, etc., legitimate concerns of the citizenry.

Both Al Gore and President Obama – recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize account saving the earth from a danger that never existed – have been main movers and shakers in the climate hoax, either by design or by stupidity. Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he would make electricity costs “skyrocket.” He’s made good on that promise, at least in Kentucky, where those rates are going up exponentially, even though the costly over-regulation of steam plants has not one iota of effect on the climate. So…the president either has meant to bankrupt power companies for reasons of his own or he has acted stupidly (his description of Cambridge policemen). Continue reading...

FYI, the above article is from that climate expert and ex-BL blogger Jim Clark.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: No where does our friend Jim Clark claim to be a climate expert but IMO, he can read as well and research political cometary as well as our other BL.C friend KeithE. And Keith Flick said nothing about Jim being an expert he simply said and I agree, that it was/is "Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax."

[KeithE]

Ed: No where does our friend Jim Clark claim to be a climate expert but IMO, he can read as well and research political cometary as well as our other BL.C friend KeithE. And Keith Flick said nothing about Jim being an expert he simply said and I agree, that it was/is "Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax."

Just commenting on who the article was written by since he was a long term BL contributor and pointing out the obvious that he is not an expert on either GW/CC or the economics thereof.

I don’t find it an excellent commentary on anything - there is NO DATA, just cynical (imo) suspicions. And calling GW/CC a “hoax" is over the top. Again in five consecutive years, polls have shown that somewhere between 95 and 99% climate scientists believe in human caused global warming.

[David Flick]

Ed: No where does our friend Jim Clark claim to be a climate expert but IMO, he can read as well and research political cometary as well as our other BL.C friend KeithE. And Keith Flick said nothing about Jim being an expert he simply said and I agree, that it was/is "Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax."

Just commenting on who the article was written by since he was a long term BL contributor and pointing out the obvious that he is not an expert on either GW/CC or the economics thereof.

Well, Keith, it's a lead pipe cinch that you are no better of an expert on on GW/CC than Jim. Or for that matter, your expertise doesn't exceed mine. At least Jim and I aren't climate change scaremongers.

1I don’t find it an excellent commentary on anything - 2there is NO DATA, just cynical (imo) suspicions. 3And calling GW/CC a “hoax" is over the top. 4Again in five consecutive years, polls have shown that somewhere between 95 and 99% climate scientists believe in human caused global warming.

1) Well of course you wouldn't.
2) No Data?? Cynical suspicions?? Keith, your reading comprehension skill is pathetic. There are data throughout Jim's article. Besides, what do you know about economics in Kentucky? Go back and read the article again. I challenge you to refute Jim's article paragraph by paragraph. You can't do it...
3) Nothing "over the top" about calling GW/CC a hoax. That's exactly what it is. It's a hoax based on fear mongering.
4) Again, for the umpteenth time, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a 95%/99% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is caused by humans. Such a notion is a wild and crazy myth spun by CAGW alarmists...

[KeithE]

Ed: No where does our friend Jim Clark claim to be a climate expert but IMO, he can read as well and research political cometary as well as our other BL.C friend KeithE. And Keith Flick said nothing about Jim being an expert he simply said and I agree, that it was/is "Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax."

Just commenting on who the article was written by since he was a long term BL contributor and pointing out the obvious that he is not an expert on either GW/CC or the economics thereof.

Well, Keith, it's a lead pipe cinch that you are no better of an expert on on GW/CC than Jim. Or for that matter, your expertise doesn't exceed mine. At least Jim and I aren't climate change scaremongers.

1I don’t find it an excellent commentary on anything - 2there is NO DATA, just cynical (imo) suspicions. 3And calling GW/CC a “hoax" is over the top. 4Again in five consecutive years, polls have shown that somewhere between 95 and 99% climate scientists believe in human caused global warming.

1) Well of course you wouldn't.
2) No Data?? Cynical suspicions?? Keith, your reading comprehension skill is pathetic. There are data throughout Jim's article. Besides, what do you know about economics in Kentucky? Go back and read the article again. I challenge you to refute Jim's article paragraph by paragraph. You can't do it...
3) Nothing "over the top" about calling GW/CC a hoax. That's exactly what it is. It's a hoax based on fear mongering.
4) Again, for the umpteenth time, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a 95%/99% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is caused by humans. Such a notion is a wild and crazy myth spun by CAGW alarmists...

Re-read Jim’s article with an eye for DATA - not any scientific data. Some $ numbers on side topics like stimulus spending some of which I agree with (although his characteristic snideness is not my style). Concerning GW/CC, some cynical/unsuppported comments like:

Jim: manmade-global-warming-climate-change thing has already been totally identified as a monstrous hoax by actual scientists/climatologists

In each of the last 5 years polls of actual climate scientists/climatologists have it 95-99% believe in AGW. Read about that in this post. Just by ignoring these polls (for the umpteenth time) does not change them in the slightest.

I note again that loaded term “Hoax”? Hardly. “Monstrous hoax”? Jim has sunk lower than even David. Truth is climatologists have real concerns, not deliberate lies as “hoax” implies.

Jim: Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he would make electricity costs “skyrocket.” He’s made good on that promise, at least in Kentucky, where those rates are going up exponentially, even though the costly over-regulation of steam plants has not one iota of effect on the climate.

Truth is KY is one state with the lowest electric rates;

Haven’t found much on KY rate increases other than one comment that it has gone up by 17% in the last few years. Hardly “skyrocketed” and Obama like Bush before him has not fulfilled promises to demand scrubbers be installed on old coal-fired plants so those increases are due to something other than what Jim leads you to “costly over-regulation of steam plants". Like I have said elsewhere solar power costs are declining and coal-fired electric based costs are increasing (even w/o scrubbers being added).

Adding scrubbers to coal-fired electric plants does not have "one iota of effect” on the climate?? - yeah sure. Those plants emit SO2/NOx causing acid rain (which has had been substantially fixed through regulations) and 30% of the worldwide CO2 emissions that cause global warming (so says 95%+ of climatologists and all professional scientific organization)- which has not been fixed yet.

And btw Obama quote has been taken out of context. Read about it at FACT CHECK. He was talking hypothetically about possible cap and trade scenarios effects, not hoping for higher rates but instead hoping we switch to alternative energy sources. Romney and Gingrich dug this up and applied it to gasoline rate increases.

As for Jim’s article (vintage Jim), he makes bold claims, wish-it-were-so ideology - no facts on the GW/CC front (scientific or economical).

[David Flick]

1In each of the last 5 years polls of actual climate scientists/climatologists have it 95-99% believe in AGW. Read about that in this post. 2Just by ignoring these polls (for the umpteenth time) does not change them in the slightest.

1) You're dreaming, Keith. That bogus poll (the Doran/Zimmerman poll) of "actual climate scientists/climatologists" is nothing more than raw CAGW propaganda.

2) Not ignoring it. Just stating the simple facts about your propaganda. Again for the umpteenth time plus 1, there has never been, nor will there ever be, an honest scientific poll of actual climate scientists who agree to the point of 95 to 99% that AGW is reality. I thoroughly debunked that myth in this post.

[David Flick]

.
.Followup on the nonsensical alarmist theory that 97% (or 95%, take your pick) of all climate scientists believe anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real:

First, from the alarmist point of view:

The website most responsible for pushing the 97% or 95% "consensus" propaganda that scientists believe in AGW is SkepticalScience.Com. The website which claims to "explain climate change science & rebut global warming misinformation" is actually one of the most prolific purveyors of global warming misinformation. Here are a couple of articles from the website that provide two different consensus percentage figures (one 97% and the other 95%).
• Is there scientific consensus on global warming? (Basic). This article was apparently written for the novice alarmists who have limited understanding about what the the AGW debate is all about. The article touts a 97% consensus among all climate scientists.
  
• Is there scientific consensus on global warming? (Intermediate) This article --from the same source as the one above-- touts a 95% consensus. It focuses heavily on the bogus Doran/Zimmerman poll. One would think that the author of the articles could get his propaganda figures on the same page. Why would one article suggest that 97% of climate scientists agree and the other suggest that only 95% of climate scientists agree on the issue?

Secondly, from the skeptics point of view:

Here are six articles that successfully debunk the 97% or 95 % consensus theory. They are self explanatory, consequently I don't need to add commentary to any of them.
• Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
  
• Ninety Seven Percent Not What You Think
• The Embarrassing Facts: 97% of Climate Scientists Equals Only 75 Anonymous Persons Who Answered Online Survey
• The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
• The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing
• 97% of people quoting this figure are wrong
• The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

Conclusion:

It is unarguable that science does not and cannot be determined by consensus. Today's young people been educated and taught is that consensus is good, i.e. that consensus is the result of people talking and discussing and compromising. Many people are taught compromise is good. They are taught consensus is people working together to establish truth. The alarmists have led the gullible to believe there is consensus on science and global warming. Except for one problem. It specifically is not science if it is established by consensus. Science is not subject to opinion. "Consensus" is the stuff of politics but it's definitely not the stuff of science. The law of gravity is not the product of a consensus. For that matter, no scientific fact or truth is determined by consensus. And this is the problem with anthropogenic global warming. Surely Keith ought to know this, being a scientist himself...

[KeithE]

.
.Followup on the nonsensical alarmist theory that 97% (or 95%, take your pick) of all climate scientists believe anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real:

First, from the alarmist point of view:

The website most responsible for pushing the 97% or 95% "consensus" propaganda that scientists believe in AGW is SkepticalScience.Com. The website which claims to "explain climate change science & rebut global warming misinformation" is actually one of the most prolific purveyors of global warming misinformation. Here are a couple of articles from the website that provide two different consensus percentage figures (one 97% and the other 95%).
• Is there scientific consensus on global warming? (Basic). This article was apparently written for the novice alarmists who have limited understanding about what the the AGW debate is all about. The article touts a 97% consensus among all climate scientists.
  
• Is there scientific consensus on global warming? (Intermediate) This article --from the same source as the one above-- touts a 95% consensus. It focuses heavily on the bogus Doran/Zimmerman poll. One would think that the author of the articles could get his propaganda figures on the same page. Why would one article suggest that 97% of climate scientists agree and the other suggest that only 95% of climate scientists agree on the issue?

The second article said “about 95%” while the first gave the more accurate 97% (75 out of 77). Both speak the truth in our GW/CC argument and you are straining over gnats.

The Doran study has been published in many places not just Skeptical Science. The Doran study (2009) was validated with 4 other studies (2007, 2008, 20010, 2011) as I just showed you all showing somewhere between 95 and 99% of actual climate scientists agree with AGW.


The more a earth scientist is involved in Climatology the more convinced they are in AGW.

David:Secondly, from the skeptics point of view:[/b

Here are six articles that successfully debunk the 97% or 95 % consensus theory. They are self explanatory, consequently I don't need to add commentary to any of them.
• Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
  
• Ninety Seven Percent Not What You Think
• The Embarrassing Facts: 97% of Climate Scientists Equals Only 75 Anonymous Persons Who Answered Online Survey
• The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
• The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing
• 97% of people quoting this figure are wrong
• The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

[b]Conclusion:

It is unarguable that science does not and cannot be determined by consensus. Today's young people been educated and taught is that consensus is good, i.e. that consensus is the result of people talking and discussing and compromising. Many people are taught compromise is good. They are taught consensus is people working together to establish truth. The alarmists have led the gullible to believe there is consensus on science and global warming. Except for one problem. It specifically is not science if it is established by consensus. Science is not subject to opinion. "Consensus" is the stuff of politics but it's definitely not the stuff of science. The law of gravity is the product of a consensus. For that matter, no scientific fact or truth is determined by consensus. And this is the problem with anthropogenic global warming. Surely Keith ought to know this, being a scientist himself...

All your words provide no poll data just blustering chatter. Consensus is most likely right but not always so. But you have shown nothing to change any rational person away from the 97% consensus in this case. Just bluster ad articles that are just bluster.

I checked into Lawrence Solomon’s article and it was incredibly misleading when he said:

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Those 77 were not "just chosen to highlight” a viewpoint as Solomon implies - they were the earth scientists that were active climatologists and had "more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change”. Read about it here.

And when it is validated well within statistical tolerance by 4 other studies, it as as firm as polls ever get.

Your other articles are not worth my time.

As for US public attitudes, I’m sure 97% do not believe in AGW. Here’s a recent poll about the public’s opinion of certain GW/CC actions.



So it is not only the experts that believe in AGW, but the public wants to do something about it by what in political terms is called a supermajority (albeit not 97%).

BTW, the cost of business as usual exceeds that of 80% cut in CO2 by 2050. Confirmed here and here and here.

[KeithE]

Well it seems we can add 2012 as a year where polls of the scientific community shows they believe in AGW.
Scientific Consensus Stronger than Scientists Thought?

It appears that 100% of the 171 experts thought GW was caused by human activity (90% say humans are the primary cause of GW and 10% said it was a secondary cause, 0% that humans had no impact and 0% the earth has not warmed in the last 250 years)



That is 6 straight years of polling and I can now say the consensus about AGW is 95-100% instead of 95-99%.

Other Poll Results.
This poll asked for not only their personal, professional opinion (“actual answers”) but also what they thought scientists as a whole believed (“expected answers”). Interesting polling idea. It’s major conclusion is that the true scientific consensus is even stronger than the scientists themselves believe.

[David Flick]

.
.Moved from SBC News and Trends Thread:

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).

There are no reputable polls anywhere that have shown that "somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW." The notion that 95 to 100% of climate scientists believe the reality of AGW is classic alarmist propaganda.

And talk about hypocrisy. 1 Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). 2“Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.

1 Oh really? Just who was the last to call whom an idiot? It certainly wasn't me. It was you who last called me an idiot. It occurred on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am. On that day while you were off flying high somewhere in the wild blue yonder, you posted no less than two (2) of the same message wherein you called me an idiot. Check it out here. Would you like to eat some crow? Here, have a plate...

-- Incidentally, how about re-documenting the last time I called you an idiot? I'd be very interested in seeing your documentation. I can't seem to find it in the BL.Com archives.

2 One major difference. The term "alarmist" has no connotation whatsoever to Nazism. The term "deniers" is a direct reference to Nazism.

Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.

It must be miserable for you to wake up each day living in fear of a nonexistent threat. From you, I can appreciate how Chicken Little must have felt, believing that the sky was falling.

Key: Keith = black; David = brown

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

Moved it here. Hope this is better for you.

1Years ago I complained to the Moderators about your vehemence and language wrt GW. I sent them an extracted list via PM (it has been deleted at least from my PM records). 2It had as I remember 30 epithets (bad language) with included idiot, hoax, arrogant and many other things each repeatably used. 3It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin. So I started in firing back but never to the level you have consistently done.

1) Keith, apparently you haven't noticed that it has been more than 8 years since I even used the word "idiot" here on BL.Com. Bruce changed the BL.Com format to phpBB software back in 2004. I'll admit that I was quite strident prior to 2004 and did, in fact, use the word back in those days. But that was eight long years ago. I decided long ago that such language was useless and consequently haven't employed that sort of communication since then. The fact that I disagree with you views does not mean that my language and "vehemence" is out of the ordinary for internet communication. I have used no "bad language" since the Bruce changed the format. I challenge you to document the so-called "bad language" I may have used since 2004. Please search the current archives and document any epithets or other language.

2) As I said above, I have not used the word "idiot" since 2004. Haven't even written the word in reference to a single member of the BL.Com family. Not once. Which is not something you can brag about. I documented the last time you called me an idiot. Let's make something clear here. The words, "hoax" and "arrogant" are not epithets. They are valid words. I use the word "hoax" in reference to AGW because it is a hoax. AGW is nonexistent. There is no such thing as AGW. I use the word "arrogant" in reference to supporters of AGW because it is the epitome of arrogance for anyone to claim that man has the ability or capacity to change or control global warming and climate change. Man has never had the ability to control climate change and will not have such in our life time.

3) As a matter of fact, you do have rather thin skin.

I’ll cool it if you will. *I much prefer to let the plots do the talking.

* From what I have observed by reading reputable scientists, the plots created by alarmists, -- i.e. those from the IPCC, Joe Romm & ThinkProgress.Org, Michael Mann & RealClimate.Org,, James Hansen, Phil Jones, et.al.-- are bogus and were created from bogus or "cooked" data. For example, Mann's "Hockey Stick" was created from data which completely eliminated both the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) and the LIA (Little Ice Age). The IPCC picked up on it and it became a holy AGW icon. When it was thoroughly studied by reputable scientists, it was thoroughly debunked. Mann went back and changed it twice and still didn't get it right. Even today, the Hockey Stick graph, as currently plotted, has the MWP being cooler than current temperatures and the LIA as not being as cold as it actually was. It's common knowledge that the MWP was much warmer than today's temperatures

1You keep repeating your "baloney cheeses” 2and even deny (oh I'm sorry) refuse to admit the plain fact about 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW according to 6 straight years of various polls. 3If you give any DATA plots at all, it is usually truncated to hide the truth (E.g. earth air temps from 1998- today ignoring the available DATA from 1850 -1998) or non-measurements like your longrangeweather.com conceptual graphic that were not measurements prior to 1850 but someone's guesstimate based on a presumed volcanic effects of global temps. Read more about this longrangeweather website here.

1) "Baloney Cheese" is really rather mild. Nothing wrong with shooting a "BC" at you once in a while when you post absurd alarmist information...

2) I refuse to acknowledge the myth that 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW. It's simply not true. As far as your "various polls" are concerned, there are only two such polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Vision Prize Poll). And they are anything but reputable. They are basically bogus and there are no credible scientist anywhere who accept these two polls as valid. I have documented that point with you on numerous occasions. Specifically here.

3) Data that disagrees with your views becomes "truncated" in your mind because it usually debunks the alarmist data. Frankly I am unimpressed with Wise Young's attempt to debunk the longrangeweather.com graph. There is sufficient data there to provide a picture of the truth. The alarmists consistently attempt to "prove" that today's temperatures are unprecedented and the highest in global history. Their alarmism is based on disproving the fact that there have been numerous times in global history when temperatures have been higher than today. Furthermore, they have no answer as to why current global warming is caused by human activity and no other warming period was caused by human activity. Truth of the matter is that human activity cannot possibly cause global warming or climate change. (References: #1 #2)

1As for the use of “deniers” read this article by one of your favorites (tic). 2Personally think you have not been bothered by the word “denier” until now as a means to combat the real extreme language coming from Heartland and their billboard and over the top words they have not retracted. Look at the red highlighted text on my March 20 12:14pm post above.

1) When it comes to GW/CC, Joe Romm is a dozen bricks shy of a full load. The stuff (alarmist disinformation) he posts is what it is. Obviously he is backing off the "denial" word because he knows the origin of the word.

2) Actually, the extreme language of the Heartland billboard (which was taken down within 24 hours after being posted) has little to do with my argument. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd who gritched to high heavens about Heartland's billboard and were themselves regularly and consistently using the denial word. they were attempting to claim innocence of such offenses when they themselves are consistently the worst offenders.

Would you rather I call you a “GW/CC skeptic”? You can continue to call me an “alarmist” for brevity.

"Skeptic" is fine with me. After all, I am indeed a GW/CC skeptic.

[KeithE]

Moved these incendiary words from Heartland’s President Joseph Bast as well.

Just to show how bad Heartland’s President’s words were (from Fox’s lead-in “Ethics Today”)

1Heartland Institute put up an inflammatory ad on a digital billboard in Chicago that associated those who believe in climate change with mass murderers.

"The most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists," claimed the institute's president, Joseph Bast, in a press release. "They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010)."

Bast asserted: "The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory."

2Justifying the billboard, the Heartland Institute said: "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.[/quote]

1) Get over it, Keith (and all of you alarmists out there). The billboard came down 24 hours after it was put up. Meanwhile, virtualy all of Romm, Gore, Hanson's vile references to "denialism" and suggestions that the skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity" (as though they are Nazis) is still out there on the internet and in print. No apology has ever been issued by any of these alarmists.

2) Keith, I never justified the billboard. Not once. The hypocricy of the alarmists is stunning. They are raising h--- over a billboard that came down 24 hours after it was put up, while steadfastly hanging on to (and justifying) the usage of terminology associated with Nazism.

But Bast has yet to back down from what he said above in red.

David, do you support those statements?

[KeithE]

.
.Moved from SBC News and Trends Thread:

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).

There are no reputable polls anywhere that have shown that "somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW." The notion that 95 to 100% of climate scientists believe the reality of AGW is classic alarmist propaganda.

And talk about hypocrisy. 1 Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). 2“Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.

1 Oh really? Just who was the last to call whom an idiot? It certainly wasn't me. It was you who last called me an idiot. It occurred on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am. On that day while you were off flying high somewhere in the wild blue yonder, you posted no less than two (2) of the same message wherein you called me an idiot. Check it out here. Would you like to eat some crow? Here, have a plate...

-- Incidentally, how about re-documenting the last time I called you an idiot? I'd be very interested in seeing your documentation. I can't seem to find it in the BL.Com archives.

2 One major difference. The term "alarmist" has no connotation whatsoever to Nazism. The term "deniers" is a direct reference to Nazism.

Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.

It must be miserable for you to wake up each day living in fear of a nonexistent threat. From you, I can appreciate how[color=#FF0000] Chicken Little must have felt, believing that the sky was falling. [/color]

Key: Keith = black; David = brown

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

Moved it here. Hope this is better for you.

1Years ago I complained to the Moderators about your vehemence and language wrt GW. I sent them an extracted list via PM (it has been deleted at least from my PM records). 2It had as I remember 30 epithets (bad language) with included idiot, hoax, arrogant and many other things each repeatably used. 3It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin. So I started in firing back but never to the level you have consistently done.

1) Keith, apparently you haven't noticed that it has been more than 8 years since I even used the word "idiot" here on BL.Com. Bruce changed the BL.Com format to phpBB software back in 2004. I'll admit that I was quite strident prior to 2004 and did, in fact, use the word back in those days. But that was eight long years ago. I decided long ago that such language was useless and consequently haven't employed that sort of communication since then. The fact that I disagree with you views does not mean that my language and "vehemence" is out of the ordinary for internet communication. I have used no "bad language" since the Bruce changed the format. I challenge you to document the so-called "bad language" I may have used since 2004. Please search the current archives and document any epithets or other language.

2) As I said above, I have not used the word "idiot" since 2004. Haven't even written the word in reference to a single member of the BL.Com family. Not once. Which is not something you can brag about. I documented the last time you called me an idiot. Let's make something clear here. The words, "hoax" and "arrogant" are not epithets. They are valid words. I use the word [color=#FF0000]"hoax" in reference to AGW because it is a hoax. AGW is nonexistent. There is no such thing as AGW. I use the word "arrogant" in reference to supporters of AGW because it is the epitome of arrogance for anyone to claim that man has the ability or capacity to change or control global warming and climate change. Man has never had the ability to control climate change and will not have such in our life time.

3) As a matter of fact, you do have rather thin skin. [/color]

I’ll cool it if you will. *I much prefer to let the plots do the talking.

* From what I have observed by reading reputable scientists, the plots created by alarmists, -- i.e. those from the IPCC, Joe Romm & ThinkProgress.Org, Michael Mann & RealClimate.Org,, James Hansen, Phil Jones, et.al.-- are[color=#FF0000] bogus and were created from bogus or "cooked" data. For example, Mann's "Hockey Stick" was created from data which completely eliminated both the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) and the LIA (Little Ice Age). The IPCC picked up on it and it became a holy AGW icon. When it was thoroughly studied by reputable scientists, it was thoroughly debunked. Mann went back and changed it twice and still didn't get it right. Even today, the Hockey Stick graph, as currently plotted, has the MWP being cooler than current temperatures and the LIA as not being as cold as it actually was. It's common knowledge that the MWP was much warmer than today's temperatures [/color]

1You keep repeating your "baloney cheeses” 2and even deny (oh I'm sorry) refuse to admit the plain fact about 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW according to 6 straight years of various polls. 3If you give any DATA plots at all, it is usually truncated to hide the truth (E.g. earth air temps from 1998- today ignoring the available DATA from 1850 -1998) or non-measurements like your longrangeweather.com conceptual graphic that were not measurements prior to 1850 but someone's guesstimate based on a presumed volcanic effects of global temps. Read more about this longrangeweather website here.

1) "[color=#FF0000]Baloney Cheese" is really rather mild. Nothing wrong with shooting a "BC" at you once in a while when you post absurd alarmist information...

2) I refuse to acknowledge the myth that 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW. It's simply not true. As far as your "various polls" are concerned, there are only two such polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Vision Prize Poll). And they are anything but reputable. They are basically bogus and there are no credible scientist anywhere who accept these two polls as valid. I have documented that point with you on numerous occasions. Specifically here.

3) Data that disagrees with your views becomes "truncated" in your mind because it usually debunks the alarmist data. Frankly I am unimpressed with Wise Young's attempt to debunk the longrangeweather.com graph. There is sufficient data there to provide a picture of the truth. The alarmists consistently attempt to "prove" that today's temperatures are unprecedented and the highest in global history. Their alarmism is based on disproving the fact that there have been numerous times in global history when temperatures have been higher than today. Furthermore, they have no answer as to why current global warming is caused by human activity and no other warming period was caused by human activity. Truth of the matter is that human activity cannot possibly cause global warming or climate change. (References: #1 #2) [/color]

1As for the use of “deniers” read this article by one of your favorites (tic). 2Personally think you have not been bothered by the word “denier” until now as a means to combat the real extreme language coming from Heartland and their billboard and over the top words they have not retracted. Look at the red highlighted text on my March 20 12:14pm post above.

1) When it comes to GW/CC, Joe Romm is a dozen bricks shy of a full load. The stuff (alarmist disinformation) he posts is what it is. Obviously he is backing off the "denial" word because he knows the origin of the word.

2) Actually, the extreme language of the Heartland billboard (which was taken down within 24 hours after being posted) has little to do with my argument. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd who gritched to high heavens about Heartland's billboard and were themselves regularly and consistently using the denial word. they were attempting to claim innocence of such offenses when they themselves are consistently the [color=#FF0000]worst offenders.[/color]

Would you rather I call you a “GW/CC skeptic”? You can continue to call me an “alarmist” for brevity.

"Skeptic" is fine with me. After all, I am indeed a GW/CC skeptic.

Letting aside all the misinformation in the above (I’m a working man who likes to have some sleep), I have highlighted instances of "bad language” applied to sincere people in your discussion above in red. The tone of nearly all your posting is full of words that like and shows disrespect for me, climate scientists and Joe Romm. I did notice a little reform in your wording after I complained (btw, I do not think it was as far back as 8 years ago), but it was temporary. Using such words as a substitute for real DATA analysis is not very convincing. Nor is quoting your usual sources (internet enclaves).

The word “hoax” means a mischievous trick intended to deceive. GW/CC scientists are sincere and not “cooking” data as you say and certainly not part of any hoax. You simply cannot wish this huge body of DATA away so simply. And your continued use of “hoax" is unwarranted to say the least.

[David Flick]

.
.

• Nothing new here: Climate change is nothing new
  
  
• Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, on why it’s important to not let climate change skeptics be silenced and his fight against climate alarmism among other world leaders and the UN: Politically incorrect president
  .
  .

[David Flick]

.
.Disclaimer: Due to my heavy work schedule, I have very little time these days to engage in internet discussions. It is difficult for me to find the time to research and document the facts that support my views. Thus, there is a significant time lapse between my replies...

Key: Keith = black; David = brown

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

Moved it here. Hope this is better for you.

1Years ago I complained to the Moderators about your vehemence and language wrt GW. I sent them an extracted list via PM (it has been deleted at least from my PM records). 2It had as I remember 30 epithets (bad language) with included idiot, hoax, arrogant and many other things each repeatably used. 3It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin. So I started in firing back but never to the level you have consistently done.

1) Keith, apparently you haven't noticed that it has been more than 8 years since I even used the word "idiot" here on BL.Com. Bruce changed the BL.Com format to phpBB software back in 2004. I'll admit that I was quite strident prior to 2004 and did, in fact, use the word back in those days. But that was eight long years ago. I decided long ago that such language was useless and consequently haven't employed that sort of communication since then. The fact that I disagree with you views does not mean that my language and "vehemence" is out of the ordinary for internet communication. I have used no "bad language" since the Bruce changed the format. I challenge you to document the so-called "bad language" I may have used since 2004. Please search the current archives and document any epithets or other language.

2) As I said above, I have not used the word "idiot" since 2004. Haven't even written the word in reference to a single member of the BL.Com family. Not once. Which is not something you can brag about. I documented the last time you called me an idiot. Let's make something clear here. The words, "hoax" and "arrogant" are not epithets. They are valid words. I use the word "hoax" in reference to AGW because it is a hoax. AGW is nonexistent. There is no such thing as AGW. I use the word "arrogant" in reference to supporters of AGW because it is the epitome of arrogance for anyone to claim that man has the ability or capacity to change or control global warming and climate change. Man has never had the ability to control climate change and will not have such in our life time.

3) As a matter of fact, you do have rather thin skin.

I’ll cool it if you will. *I much prefer to let the plots do the talking.

* From what I have observed by reading reputable scientists, the plots created by alarmists, -- i.e. those from the IPCC, Joe Romm & ThinkProgress.Org, Michael Mann & RealClimate.Org,, James Hansen, Phil Jones, et.al.-- are bogus and were created from bogus or "cooked" data. For example, Mann's "Hockey Stick" was created from data which completely eliminated both the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) and the LIA (Little Ice Age). The IPCC picked up on it and it became a holy AGW icon. When it was thoroughly studied by reputable scientists, it was thoroughly debunked. Mann went back and changed it twice and still didn't get it right. Even today, the Hockey Stick graph, as currently plotted, has the MWP being cooler than current temperatures and the LIA as not being as cold as it actually was. It's common knowledge that the MWP was much warmer than today's temperatures

1You keep repeating your "baloney cheeses” 2and even deny (oh I'm sorry) refuse to admit the plain fact about 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW according to 6 straight years of various polls. 3If you give any DATA plots at all, it is usually truncated to hide the truth (E.g. earth air temps from 1998- today ignoring the available DATA from 1850 -1998) or non-measurements like your longrangeweather.com conceptual graphic that were not measurements prior to 1850 but someone's guesstimate based on a presumed volcanic effects of global temps. Read more about this longrangeweather website here.

1) "Baloney Cheese" is really rather mild. Nothing wrong with shooting a "BC" at you once in a while when you post absurd alarmist information...

2) I refuse to acknowledge the myth that 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW. It's simply not true. As far as your "various polls" are concerned, there are only three such polls (i.e. a) the Naomi Oreskes survey, b) the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the c) Vision Prize Poll). And they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, credible. They are all bogus and there are no credible scientist anywhere who accept these three polls as valid. I have documented two of the three bogus surveys with you on numerous occasions. Specifically here.

3) Data that disagrees with your views becomes "truncated" in your mind because it usually debunks the alarmist data. Frankly I am unimpressed with Wise Young's attempt to debunk the longrangeweather.com graph. There is sufficient data there to provide a picture of the truth. The alarmists consistently attempt to "prove" that today's temperatures are unprecedented and the highest in global history. Their alarmism is based on disproving the fact that there have been numerous times in global history when temperatures have been higher than today. Furthermore, they have no answer as to why current global warming is caused by human activity and no other warming period was caused by human activity. Truth of the matter is that human activity cannot possibly cause global warming or climate change. (References: #1 #2)

1As for the use of “deniers” read this article by one of your favorites (tic). 2Personally think you have not been bothered by the word “denier” until now as a means to combat the real extreme language coming from Heartland and their billboard and over the top words they have not retracted. Look at the red highlighted text on my March 20 12:14pm post above.

1) When it comes to GW/CC, Joe Romm is a dozen bricks shy of a full load. The stuff (alarmist disinformation) he posts is what it is. Obviously he is backing off the "denial" word because he knows the origin of the word.

2) Actually, the extreme language of the Heartland billboard (which was taken down within 24 hours after being posted) has little to do with my argument. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd who gritched to high heavens about Heartland's billboard and were themselves regularly and consistently using the denial word. they were attempting to claim innocence of such offenses when they themselves are consistently the worst offenders.

Would you rather I call you a “GW/CC skeptic”? You can continue to call me an “alarmist” for brevity.

"Skeptic" is fine with me. After all, I am indeed a GW/CC skeptic.

Responding to the quotebox above: Key: Keith = black; David = brown

1Letting aside all the misinformation in the above (I’m a working man who likes to have some sleep), 2I have highlighted instances of "bad language” applied to sincere people in your discussion above in red. 3The tone of nearly all your posting is full of words that like and shows disrespect for me, climate scientists and Joe Romm. I did notice a little reform in your wording after I complained (4btw, I do not think it was as far back as 8 years ago), but it was temporary. 5Using such words as a substitute for real DATA analysis is not very convincing. Nor is quoting your usual sources (internet enclaves).

1) No doubt you're a working man who cherishes sleep. That said, the misinformation you perceive is your misconception of the truth wrt this discussion about AGW. But reality is just the opposite. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is virtually nonexistent. In fact it's an impossible theory.

2) Let's examine the "bad language” which you perceive as "misinformation," words which you highlighted in red:

• "hoax" - Definition: "something intended to deceive or defraud." There's no doubt that the alarmists honestly believe AGW is true. The reality is that AGW false. The alarmists have deceived much of the general public into believing that human activity --i.e. the human generation of CO2-- is the cause of global warming/climate change. The reality is that the level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is so infinitesimally small that it cannot possibly affect either global warming or climate change. The level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is just 1/27th of 1 percent of all gases combined. All of the greenhouse gases combined is just 1 percent of all gasses in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is caused by human activity is 3.225 percent of the 3.62 percent of the 1 percent of the atmosphere that comprises greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is caused by human activity is 3.225 percent of the 3.62 percent of the 1 percent of the atmosphere that comprises greenhouse gases. (Source...) Alarmists would have us believe that human generated CO2 --which comprises only 3.2% of 3.6% of 1% of the total amount of all gasses in the atmosphere-- causes catastrophic global warming. Thus it is utterly impossible for human generated CO2 to have even a smidgin of an impact on global warming or climate change.
  . . . . .Here's another way of explaining the alarmist myth: The total amount of ALL CO2 in the atmosphere (both naturally occurring and human generated) is 0.117%.. The current level of ALL the CO2 on the globe is 396 ppm. CO2 is measured in parts per million. That's only 396 molecules of CO2 in every 1,000,000 molecules of gas in the entire globe! CO2, both naturally occurring and man-made are indistinguishable from one another. It is virtually impossible to discern which CO2 molecules are human generated and which are naturally occurring. The hoax is that the AGW alarmists have deceived much the general public into believing that an insignificant amount or harmless gas is dangerously high when, in fact, it is not. The proponents of AGW have deceived much of the general public into believing that CO2 --which, BTW, is NOT a pollutant-- drives global warming/climate change. CO2 has never driven global warming/climate change and what's more, it never will. (see here and here ) Therein lies the "hoax."
  
  
• "thin skin" - You wrote in the quote box above: "It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin." I stated the opposite of what Bruce wrote.
  
  
• "bogus" - Definition: "Counterfeit or fake; not genuine." On the whole, the theory of AGW is not genuine. Data supporting the theory as presented by the IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, et. al. is bogus, (i.e. not genuine). The data supporting the theory that CO2 is the prime the driver of Global warming/climate change are bogus (i.e. not genuine). Data presented by the IPCC supporting the theory that melting glaciers signals the certainty of catastrophic global warming is bogus (i.e. not genuine) The data supporting the catastrophic claims in Gore's, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH are bogus (i.e. not genuine). The data from which Michael Mann created the "Hockey Stick" graph, which completely omitted the Medieval Warming Perior and the Little Ice Age are bogus (i.e. not genuine). The data supporting Michael Mann's "unprecedented" rise in global temperatures are bogus (i.e. not genuine) The data which James Hansen uses to make the claim that there will be 24 meter rise in sea levels are bogus (i.e. not genuine). Data supporting the various and sundry reports that the Arctic and Antarctic are melting are bogus (i.e. not genuine) Data supporting the idea that global warming threatens the extinction of the polar bear are bogus (i.e. not genuine) The list of bogus claims made by the alarmists is almost endless.
  
  
• "absurd" - Definition: "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false." The information in three polls (i.e. a) the Naomi Oreskes survey, b) the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the c) Vision Prize Poll) which declare that there is a 95%, 97%, or 100% "consensus" is absurd. Actually, the polls are beyond absurd. As I've said numerous times, there is not now, nor has there ever been a 95%, 97%, or 100% "consensus" among credible climate scientists. It simply does not exist. It's a myth.
  
  
• "cooked data" - The alarmist data related to AGW are "cooked data." No doubt about it. This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this.These explain the "cooked data" quite well. Nuff said...
  
  
• "dozen bricks shy of a full load" - Maybe I should have gone with "three fries short of a Happy Meal".
  
  
• "gritched to high heavens" - Maybe I should have written "griped to high heavens." At any rate, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd who griped about the Heartland billboard, which was taken down in 24 hours while the alarmists were regularly and consistently using the denial word. They refuse to refrain from using "denialist" which is an obvious reference to Nazism.
  
  
• "worst offenders: - The fact of the matter is that the alarmists are the worst offenders. Check these out: this, this, this, this and this. When was the last time you heard about skeptics calling for burning down alarmists homes, suggesting that they are mentally ill, or calling for them to be tried as criminals against humanity? I'd say that the alarmists are by far and away the worst offenders in this debate.
3) I have no respect at all for Joe Romm. He took Peter Gleick's side in the Fakegate scam. Gleick, as you are well aware, faked that document and lied about it. Romm promoted Gleick's thievery, lies and the creation of the fake document. I have no respect at all for anyone who supports thievery and dishonesty. Romm and the DeSmogBlog people are chief among the propagators of AGW propaganda. It is impossible for me to have respect for such persons.

4) Keith, it has indeed been longer than 8 years since I used or written the word "idiot" here on the BL.Com forums. Bruce changed the website's software in early August of 2004. If I had written or used the word since then, you could easily do a search and locate it. I've done the search myself and cannot locate it. I have admitted using such language prior to that time but abandoned the usage of such language

5) Any data supporting AGW/ man-caused climate change is bogus.

1The word “hoax” means a mischievous trick intended to deceive. 2GW/CC scientists are sincere and not “cooking” data as you say and certainly not part of any hoax. 3You simply cannot wish this huge body of DATA away so simply. 4And your continued use of “hoax" is unwarranted to say the least.

1) "Hoax" is indeed what the alarmists have perpetrated on the general public. While they may not think they are deceiving the public, that is exactly what they are doing. AGW (man-made global warming) is a virtual impossibility. Man (humanity), by means of human activity, cannot possibly control global climate, much less change it from cooler to warmer or warmer to cooler. Throughout history there have numerous climate swings. Not a single one of them heretofore was ever caused by human activity. Not one. So it is in fact a "hoax." It is extremely arrogant for anyone to make such absurd claims.

2) I have no doubt that the alarmists in their efforts but they are sincerely wrong. As far as "cooking the data," I've documented numerous times that the data supporting man-made global warming has been cooked. that's an indisputable fact. James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones are the most prominent of the data cookers...

3) The huge body of data supporting AGW/human caused climate change is bogus.

4) My continued use of "hoax" is warranted. I'm not the person who first used the term. Credible scientists around the globe have used the term for years. I'm simply reflecting their usage of the term.

[KeithE]

Some quick retorts to David’s most obvious misunderstandings. Keith in Black, David in Brown.

2) I refuse to acknowledge the myth that 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW. It's simply not true. As far as your "various polls" are concerned, there are only three such polls (i.e. a) the Naomi Oreskes survey, b) the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the c) Vision Prize Poll). And they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, credible. They are all bogus and there are no credible scientist anywhere who accept these three polls as valid.

5 polls were documented here and covered the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. The sixth one the VisionPrize poll was in 2012 and documented here. The Oreskes was not a poll but a literature search and happened much earlier. You can claim all 6 polls were bogus all you want David. But that is not true. When 6 polls year after year say the same thing, that is validated truth. Further your claim that “no credible scientist anywhere” accept these polls is plain nonsense and not supported by any fact - just your own “misunderstanding” and that is being kind.

"hoax" - Definition: "something intended to deceive or defraud." There's no doubt that the alarmists honestly believe AGW is true.

Then it is not a genuine “hoax” and ascribing “intent to deceive or defraud” to the well meaning climate scientists is plainly wrong.

Gleick, as you are well aware, faked that document and lied about it. Romm promoted Gleick's thievery, lies and the creation of the fake document. I have no respect at all for anyone who supports thievery and dishonesty.

Gleick denies faking any document but has admitted to misrepresenting himself in obtaining the Heartland documents. Those documents and Bast’s incendiary comments have proven to be of such an embarrassment that over one third of Heartland’s sponsors have dropped them and their next year’s meeting cancelled. So I am not aware that Gleick faked any document. And I betcha you hold in high regard the thief that hacked into CRU’s mail server if that hacker were to be known.

The alarmist data related to AGW are "cooked data." No doubt about it. This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this.These explain the "cooked data" quite well. Nuff said...

4 independent review bodies have exonerated Jones’ surface air temp measurements since 1850 including the BEST study partially funded by the Koch Brothers. Their DATA still stands and is validated by both GISS analysis of temp measurements and the totally independent satellite data whether reduced by UAH or RSS.

4 independent review bodies have also exonerated Mann paleoclimatic DATA - the Hockey Stick as well as Penn State exoneration of his research integrity.

Dream on David. I’m a busy guy as well. So just because I don’t take the time to study all of your "This, This, This, This" links , does not mean I agree. I have found them vacuous in the past - all from the GW/CC skeptic, vested interest, propaganda machine and refutable. Frankly I’m tired of your factless bluster.

[Matto]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

[David Flick]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

They aren't, Matto, nor are the bubbles in your Pepsi or the CO2 in every breath you exhale. The notion that CO2 causes global warming/climate change is a wild alarmist myth...

[Matto]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

They aren't, Matto, nor are the bubbles in your Pepsi or the CO2 in every breath you exhale. The notion that CO2 causes global warming/climate change is a wild alarmist myth...

That's why I refuse to believe it.

Anyone with an ounce of scientific study knows that the " climate change " is all ideology and not science.

It amazes me how people can be suck holed by this scam.

It's a two fold ignorance I believe.

It's an ignorance of biological systems, and the history biological systems of the past.

Couple this with an ignorance of the energy control agenda, and you have the perfect useful idiot willing to be an agent of change.

Global sized deception through ideological subversion is not new. We saw it with Marxist socialisms class warfare, we saw it with Feminisms gender warfare, and now we see it with the Environmentalist species warfare.

These giant movements were created by people with very different agendas.

The slow Fabian technique of ideological subversion takes a generation or two, but it breeds passionate advocates who do not understand how they have been deceived and controlled.
Their reality and mindset has been forged solid, and nothing on earth can retrieve them. It would crack their psyche to discover otherwise, I have seen it happen.

Keep telling people that CO2 is a pollutant over a generation and they will believe it. Every news clip they have seen with a smoke stack billowing or an exhaust pipe puffing away, every sound bite of propaganda will forge and temper the ideology.

Ideological conditioning carried out by the social engineers is a subtle bombardment of thousands of moments of affirmation through the media.
Never in human history has ideological conditioning been so easy, since the invention of the television, a malleable and gullible population has been able to flourish.
The other method that tempers the ideology is the calculated use of ridicule.

With Marxist socialism they cried ' Capitalist Pig' with Feminism they cried ' chauvinist Pig ' with Environmentalism they cried ' Denier Pig '.

Scientists whose findings go against the politically correct ideology are branded deniers and enemies of the earth.

When I look at a television I see the greatest device of control ever contrived by man, just about every show on it is designed for ideological conditioning.

[KeithE]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

They aren't, Matto, nor are the bubbles in your Pepsi or the CO2 in every breath you exhale. The notion that CO2 causes global warming/climate change is a wild alarmist myth...

That's why I refuse to believe it.

Anyone with an ounce of scientific study knows that the " climate change " is all ideology and not science.

It amazes me how people can be suck holed by this scam.

It's a two fold ignorance I believe.

It's an ignorance of biological systems, and the history biological systems of the past.

Couple this with an ignorance of the energy control agenda, and you have the perfect useful idiot willing to be an agent of change.

Global sized deception through ideological subversion is not new. We saw it with Marxist socialisms class warfare, we saw it with Feminisms gender warfare, and now we see it with the Environmentalist species warfare.

These giant movements were created by people with very different agendas.

The slow Fabian technique of ideological subversion takes a generation or two, but it breeds passionate advocates who do not understand how they have been deceived and controlled.
Their reality and mindset has been forged solid, and nothing on earth can retrieve them. It would crack their psyche to discover otherwise, I have seen it happen.

Keep telling people that CO2 is a pollutant over a generation and they will believe it. Every news clip they have seen with a smoke stack billowing or an exhaust pipe puffing away, every sound bite of propaganda will forge and temper the ideology.

Ideological conditioning carried out by the social engineers is a subtle bombardment of thousands of moments of affirmation through the media.
Never in human history has ideological conditioning been so easy, since the invention of the television, a malleable and gullible population has been able to flourish.
The other method that tempers the ideology is the calculated use of ridicule.

With Marxist socialism they cried ' Capitalist Pig' with Feminism they cried ' chauvinist Pig ' with Environmentalism they cried ' Denier Pig '.

Scientists whose findings go against the politically correct ideology are branded deniers and enemies of the earth.

When I look at a television I see the greatest device of control ever contrived by man, just about every show on it is designed for ideological conditioning.

Oh brother- another Flick and ET all rolled into one.

If you guys can’t see how Fox News and other TV/radio/internet pundits are conditioning your ideology, you have truly drunk the koolaid. Turn off the TV/Radio and look at scientific DATA wrt GW/CC and country comparable DATA/ economic facts wrt the economy.