Slashdot Mirror

LOL. These are climate "scientists", they have no fucking idea and even if they did know, they would probably conspire to hide the evidence as they have done with the widespread global cooling trend.

We always think Doomsday is always around the corner: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/10/1952-shock-news-polar-icecaps-melting-at-an-astonishing-rate-earth-to-drown-18-feb-1952-melting-polar-icecaps-raise-ocean-levels/

And we ran out of oil. The ozone's gone. We're in a nuclear winter. " ... In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death ...". I guess Paul Ehrlich was right. The sky fell.

I'll keep my "end is upon us" sign in my closet for now.

There has been plenty of talk about jailing (or worse executing/starving) AGM deniers, so why is this a surprise?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133771/Columnist-says-global-warming-skeptics-houses-burnt-down.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-record-high.htm

A long long time ago, James Hansen ceased to be a credible scientist and became an activist. Right now, there is less sea ice at the north pole than any time since 1979. There were, however, several other times in the 20th century when people were worried that the ice would disappear. Hansen knows that but it doesn't suit his purposes to let us know. He just keeps pounding his simple, alarmist message. They should throw the bum in jail ... oh wait, they did. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12518/Hansen-Back-in-Jail-NASAs-James-Hansen-Arrested-Again-Outside-White-House-at-Pipeline-Protest--Implores-Obama-to-act-for-sake-of-your-children-and-grandchildren

"There's been a lot of advocates for imprisonment for holding the wrong beliefs in the AGW debate"

Prove it, asswipe.

I call bullshit

Here's a pretty good rebuttal.

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.â Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring âoeThis is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitorsâ In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown âoeinto jail.â In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.

There's also numerous acts of intimidation in addition to the money quotes above.

In addition, I personally have gotten such threats. I've taken a lot of controversial views (for example, Fukushima) and been accused of all sorts of things. But the AGW people are loopy in a way that no one else has been. What follows is a reply when I asserted that there were massive biases inherent in current climate research and failed to back down.

Think about what a defective disgusting human being you are. You demand that the world take your fucking folk theories of science seriously while you deride , debase, pursue, accuse and slander actual hardworking, men and women who have done the real, hard work required to have an opinion worth listening to. People who have lived their lives with zero expectation of fame or power or even big money, but rather have courageously pursued the truth wherever it leads them , however unhappy that place may be.. You accuse them of lying, of power seeking of having ambitions to control the world and why? Because you don't like the message they're bringing you. Shoot the messenger much? You're the fucking lowest dirtiest kind of human on this planet, no different than the Nazis who chased the Jewish scientists out of their Third Reich. You're a low life nothing attempting to raise himself up into a position of authority over subjects you have zero knowledge of in order to achieve your preferred political ends and suppress inconvenient truths.

How's it feel to play the role of the most despicable character in every history from Roman times onwards? How's it feel to be a completely worthless, unaccomplished ignorant human being , noisily proclaiming your superiority over people whose a

This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change

So one state's booze production qualifies as a national security issue? Ha ha, that's rich! :D 'Mericaaa FUCK YEAH!

Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally"

The world's leading predictor of hurricanes, Dr. William Gray has his well educated opinion. You have yours. Hmmm, a Ph.D who has been accurately predicting hurricane frequency and intensity for decades... or some AC preaching about disease, famine, and plagues of locutus? Sorry mate, but you sound a bit religious to me.

So allow me to pull a play out of the climate cult's playbook. Coorelation equals causation: In this graph we show the last 10000 years of human population. And in this one we show the global mean temperature over the same period. Population increases with temperature, therefore we can conclude warmer weather is resulting in more people. Obviously, there's no flaw in the logic, and we have a consensus among scientists regarding these two facts. So it is true. Global warming is good for the human race. Any argument about this point means you are a "denier."

Care to argue? Of course you do. That's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. Yet, if you exchange population with CO2, it is the exact argument you are presenting.

It blows my mind how many people believe warming is such a dangerous thing. Far more people are killed by the cold each year. Give me warming any day.

People got alarmist over global cooling. I never said that there was scientific consensus, I am well aware that there wasn't. My argument concerns public perception, and that argument stands. The present media hype over climate change is harming environmental needs in terms of public perception. Focus on pollution, living sustainably, things that can be quantified, measured and reported on.

I stand by my statements about carbon being over-rated. There have been times with much higher levels of C02 than we have now. I believe things like coal power plants are far worse for the environment than carbon emissions. Research needs to put into things like bringing up Thorium power plants to replace Coal power plants.

Climate change is absolutely inevitable, I have already provided citations for this. The continents will drift, Antarctica will move away from it's polar position and into a warmer climate. The ice will melt from that alone. The sun will continue to slowly get closer to the earth changing our spot in the Goldilocks zone. Climate change is the only thing consistent about the earths history, from snowball earth to a large desert filled continent. I live two thousand miles from an ocean find sea shells in my back yard from time to time.

This doesn't mean that I advocate that we should be wreck-less with the environment. This means that were focusing on trying to preserve our world in the state it was for before the industrial revolution. There couldn't be a more unnatural position to take with regards to our environment. Climate change will happen and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We need to focus on being good planetary stewards, reducing pollution and ways to live sustainably.

I don't know why I bother with a troll, but here is a link with a fair number of citations to back up "people got alarmist". You have yet to attack the argument that I made, go troll elsewhere.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Hansen, Jones, et. al.

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Read the latest textbooks? AGW is taught as a FACT, pages and pages. Have to indoctrinate early ya know.

3. The group is preoccupied with making money.

Government Grants. Although I have to say that these guys are more narcissists that money grubbers.

4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Editors losing jobs, those expressing legitimate doubts ostracized, etc.

5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Nothing here.

6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Related to #4. Jones and friends want to be the only peer reviewers. So no dissent every really sees the light of day in the journals.

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

YOOOU aren't a Climate Scientist so nothing you say matters...Nobel Prize Winner in Physics? No matter because Yooou aren't a Climate Scientist

8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

Juden, Denier, etc. What will I have to sew onto my shirt?

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

Hiding data, ignoring legal requests for data, etc. No Problem as long as you are on the "Right" side of the debate.

10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities)

And here was have Peter Gleick. "I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved."

11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Starving Polar Bears anyone? What natural disaster hasn't been blamed on Global Warming?

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

OK, pretty much applies to Slashdot guys.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

MDSolar? Is that you?

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I'm sure Jones and Hansen hang out with non-believers all the time.

.

From the link: "The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

Oh wow!!! LOL!

You can tell that the guy who wrote this was a producer for Rush Limbaugh's show.

How sad, what riches awaited you in the next paragraph. If only you could have made the jump of a blank line....but I guess you can only expect so much of people. But still, it is odd that you chose to stop there. It is almost as if you didn't want people to read the next paragraph at the link. I wonder why?

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.

“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I

As for climate science. The Earth CERTAINLY is warming. Why is not completely understood, but it appears to be strongly correlated with human activity.

As one author I read put it (paraphrased):

the earth has changed by ~1 degree Kelvin in 150 years. That is amazingly stable.

And that is, in all the years that humanity has been at its worse in polluting the environment (e.g. the late industrial revolution to present day); it has had an impact of at most 1 degree Kelvin (from 288.0 Kelvin to 288.8 Kelvin). So there doesn't seem to be any necessary link to "human activity" other than what environmentalists wants to politicall make it. At least, it's certainly not a scientific link.

(While not the author I read, this author refers to some of the same statements the author I read referred to; so good enough for quotation here.)

Only in this particular debate, the actual scientists agree with Unnamed Democrat. That doesn't quite have the symmetry you were going for, though, right?

That really depends on the debate, doesn't it? We keep hearing that there is "Consensus" about man-made global warming being a fact in shrill tones, with accusations of being anti-science, or a "denier" if you disagree or have reservations. But the simple fact is that there has never been a genuine consensus among all scientists, not even all climatologists, that global warming, to the extent that it exists, is man-made. (Indeed, how often do you see tens of thousands of people agree about anything with no dissenting or differing views at all? I don't think that there are even many dictatorships that claim the vote is 100% for the ruling party anymore.) The faux "consensus" is in fact a means of control and a way to provide an opening for punishing dissent by denying publication, tenure, grants, and damaging reputations. The stakes are enormous: billons of dollars in green energy funding, carbon exchanges, direct government and bureaucratic control of much of the economy and daily life with the proffered goal of controlling carbon emissions. Progressives and leftists have always wanted more government power to regulate the economy. No wonder the Communists march about global warming - ironic given the Soviet record on the environment.

The Climategate emails are quite revealing.

Peer-Review Thuggery

Climategate 2.0

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.

One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.

The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.

1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Anthony Watts, McIntyre et. al.

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Read the latest web sites and books? Anti-AGW is taught as a FACT, pages and pages. Have to indoctrinate early ya know.

3. The group is preoccupied with making money.

Corporate Grants. Although I have to say that these guys are more narcissists that money grubbers.

4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Editors losing jobs, those expressing legitimate doubts ostracized, etc. Turned against temperature record skeptic Richard Muller the momen he announced that the temperature record was indeed accurate ("he was never a skeptic" - er yes he was, he was skeptical about the temperature record) It went from "Any result Muller comes out with will be top work" to "Muller is a fraud" overnight. Dissenting opinions must be removed

5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Nothing here.

6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Dissenting opinions are quickly attacked and suppressed. Insist the "Mainstream Media" must support their point of view to be "fair and balanced".

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

If you accept climate change then you a liberal socialist Gore loving sheeple idiot. We know better.

8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

Juden, Alarmist, Warmist, Liberal, Elitist, Genocide supporter, Hoaxer etc. What will I have to sew onto my shirt?

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

Hiding data, ignoring legal requests for data, computer hacking etc. No Problem as long as you are on the "Right" side of the debate.

10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities)

Character assassinations of scientists are fine with us.

11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Call yourself a patriot? These warmists are going to destroy our nation, what are you going to do to stop them?! "The repair of the mental damage done by alarmism aimed at the young will no doubt be a long and tricky task" Why are you allowing children to be brainwashed by this alarmist scum?!

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

OK, pretty much applies to Surfacestations guys.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

See 12. Also ClimateAudit etc.

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I'm sure Watts and McIntyre hang out with non-believers all the time.

1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Hansen, Jones, et. al.

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Read the latest textbooks? AGW is taught as a FACT, pages and pages. Have to indoctrinate early ya know.

3. The group is preoccupied with making money.

Government Grants. Although I have to say that these guys are more narcissists that money grubbers.

4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Editors losing jobs, those expressing legitimate doubts ostracized, etc.

5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Nothing here.

6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Related to #4. JOnes and friends want to be the only peer reviewers. So no dissent every really sees the light of day in the journals.

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

YOOOU aren't a Climate Scientist so nothing you say matters...Nobel Prize Winner in Physics? No matter because Yooou aren't a Climate Scientist

8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

Juden, Denier, etc. What will I have to sew onto my shirt?

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

Hiding data, ignoring legal requests for data, etc. No Problem as long as you are on the "Right" side of the debate.

10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities)

And here was have Peter Gleick. "I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved."

11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Starving Polar Bears anyone? What natural disaster hasn't been blamed on Global Warming?

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

OK, pretty much applies to Slashdot guys.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

MDSolar? Is that you?

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I'm sure Jones and Hansen hang out with non-believers all the time.

"Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,”

  This guy knows what he is talking about.

Oh, come on! The evidence is incontrovertible!

Oh, wait.

I see your department head and raise you a Nobel Prize winner...and not the Peace Prize winner.

That would be, Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group's Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming, Ivar Giaever.

Yeah, everything that IPCC has ever produced or referenced has been personally created by these half a dozen people.

Most of the problems with IPCC reports are the summaries. The science is done by real scientists, but the summaries are done by a few dozen people, some scientists some not, none of whom were involved in the studies they summarize. For example the climate summary was performed by about 50 scientists who were largely not involved in any of the studies. About 1000 scientists have dissented and the number is growing (it was 400 in 2007)*.

The result is a summary that often misrepresents the data.

The truth is, anytime anybody tells you there is a consensus on a scientific topic it should raise a big red flag. Even among scientists who generally agree with AGW there is no consensus on how bad it is or what we should do about or even if we should do anything about it. This is true for pretty much all fields of scientific research, and it's how science works. Nothing in science should be accepted without question. That's just how science works.

* Here is a link to the report. Given the title of the website, they are clearly biased, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, it's clear the IPCC's findings are not fully accepted by everyone who is involved in that type of research.

One scientist who predicted the run-up in temps in the 90s, and the subsequent leveling off in the 00s (meaning he's been much more accurate than most of the pro-AGW scientists) says we're heading towards a few decades of global cooling. Perhaps a carbon tax isn't what we should do?

Oh ok, so the skeptics are all in it for the money while the climate "scientists" are in it only for the love of humanity.

The Climategate emails reveal that Phil Jones and his bunch of crooks have been actively seeking funding from the same "Fossil Fuel" companies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

Robert Socolow the President of the APS and a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming has received millions in funding from British Petroleum. Please read up on what the "scientists" think about this (since you are convinced that not a single scientist could possibly disagree with AGW).

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml

Also, since you are convinced that this is some sort of American right wing conspiracy, may I point you to this Open Letter sent by German Scientists to the German President Angela Merkel way before the Climategate controversy:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogen-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/

If you want the English translation:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

Japanese Climatologists and their disagreement over AGW:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

Lie.

Liars.

Phil Jones wrote that he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” What Jones meant by "hiding the decline" is being increasingly discovered in the code and related comments. * See evidence in: The Code at Bishop Hill's blog eg the programmer noting: ""***** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********" * From the programming file "briffa_sep98_d.pro": "; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor" etc. * See: Climategate: hide the decline – codified at WattsUpWithThat.com * See discussion at Climate Audit Mirror The Harry Read_Me File * Links to current articles can be found at: Climatedepot.com The emails are searchable at: Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

That's good. Because this is science, and science is not about what you fucking believe. For the latter, consult your local priest / shaman / witch / Fox news shithead.

What? To look up data such as the documented historical fact that there was a profitable wine industry in England that was serious competition to French vineyards until the Little Ice Age killed them off? Or the documented historical fact that the average world temperature is still several degrees cooler than it was during the Medieval Warm Period? Or the documented historical fact that during the industrial buildup in the decades following WWII, when carbon-dioxide emissions skyrocketed, the average world temperature dropped? Or the documented historical fact that, while changes in world temperature and changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do go hand-in-hand, the temperature change precedes the carbon dioxide level change? It certainly is a funny "cause" of global warming if the CO2 rise happens after the warming. Why do we keep seeing articles flogging the 'threat' of global warming? Look at who's paying for it; look at who stands to lose money, power, and reputation if the 'crisis' that's been flapped for years turns out to be a crock of shit. For all the articles and research implying that global warming in general, and anthropogenic global warming in particular, is a threat, there are other articles calling it the new Big Lie.

--
"You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthropogenic global warming."

Good question. AIUI, most of the heat retention is caused by water vapor, not carbon dioxide, so the change as the percentage of CO2 goes up is rather small, and mostly found in cold, dry parts of the world.

Also, I just ran across something that might interest you: large numbers of members of the American Chemical Society are calling to have the editor of their magazine fired after an editorial of his in which he claimed that AGW is "well established." From what I gather, this is not the view of his readership, and they don't like having such facts misrepresented.

Believe as you wish. Your belief or mine mean absolutely nothing to the truth.

How true, how true. Alas, most of the people on your side of the question act as though they think that consensus actually means something in the physical sciences.

It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians. Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance'

The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.

I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem.

The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.

You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.

Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality , and the regular folks understand that.

Kevin

Just recently you can add these

Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent atmospheric scientists.

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of âoealmost certainâ thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

End Reprint of Open Letter. #