"People smile, look relieved, and then laugh."

The relieved look comes when they discover that although you are a crank, you appear to be largely harmless. The laughter is unkind.

I guess you have to be there for the follow up conversation in order to understand to just what extent a free people have been intimidated by the fantasies and hysteria they have been fed.

Mike, believe what you just wrote above this if you wish, but I prefer reality.

there are people out there who are actually scared to say what they really think about all this twaddle we are fed, and are relieved to be reassured that there are some people who openly call a spade the god damned codswallop it is.

Chris

It could well be that your comments trigger a common reaction. Peoples response to disturbing information is often to want to reject or dismiss it.This is basic human nature.

Particularly when the topic is something complex, well outside peoples experience andseemingly distant in time.

So if someone such as yourself makes that sort of comment, people may well respond positively to the comment - you are after all saying what they want to hear. Thats the pointChris. Tell people what they want to hear and they react well to you.

On the other hand, tell them the hard things, the things they don't want to hearand they are guarded, wary and reserved until you can convince them. And some people are so disturbed by what they are being told that they fiercely resist believing it - ask any doctor who has to give patients seriously bad news about the diverse ways in which people react.

All of which has nothing to do with the question of the actual validity of the science. In human affairs, reality and peoples perceptions are dance partners who never seem to get together that often.

That's nonsense, I want a second opinion, a third opinion. Find me someone who agrees with me!

"the organised denial movement"

Wot? Conspiracy theories now? Sorry, but that is just paranoia.

Care to name the people who are doing the organising? I have been left out on this one. If I am in a cell I am damned if I know who my leader is.

I am sorry, but the sceptics tend to be individuals who are able to identify shoddy science when they see it. I am unaware of any organising principle behind them, other than the one of recognising common interests and engaging in free cooperation.

Free people don't need leaders in order to work together.

Might I comment, you would enhance your credibility if you dropped nonsense terms like 'denier' and stuck to sceptic instead. At least that term is accurate.

Perhaps the denial is caused by people looking out their windows instead of at computer models.
Europe is having horrific winters and snow extent in the Northern hemisphere hit a record in 2012
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/2012-finished-with-record-snow-extent/
. Considering the deafening propaganda about the recent heat wave in Russia the climate "intelligentsia" have been very quiet about the 70 year record cold this year in Russia
http://www.livescience.com/25737-russia-cold-snap.html

And while the doom-and-gloomers are having a field day with the Australian heat wave nary a word from them about the record cold in China and India.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/08/china-cold/1817271/
All of the above are not going to convince realists that the climate catastrophists are right and no amount of fiddling the temperature record will make the snow go away!

For a group of "free people who do not need leaders", you cranks have managed to set up an amazing number of astro turf groups.

http://www.cana.net.au/sites/default/files/DoubtingAustralia.pdf

And amazingly for people who are just against shoddy science, they are all from the hard-right to the far-right. Just coincidence of course.

The Koch brothers come to mind. So to the multitudinous 'think tank's that spring to mind - Heartland Institute, CO2Science, SPPI etc.

"I am sorry, but the sceptics tend to be individuals who are able to identify shoddy science when they see it.". Absolutely true. How else to explain how sceptics are then drawn so strongly to such shoddy science if they can't identify it first - Lindzen & Choi, Soon & Balliaunas etc.

"...if you dropped nonsense terms like 'denier' and stuck to sceptic instead. At least that term is accurate" Actually, the use of the word sceptic by self-labelled sceptics is actually absolutely inaccurate!

The central character of scepticism is an open-mindedness. the sceptic may not feel that the evidence available sufficiently makes the case for the proposition presented. But they are completely open-minded about the possibility of that casebeing made. And, importantly they don't have any preference either way for what the final conclusion will be, other than that it is supported by the evidence.

Interesting quote about skepticism in general: "Skeptics change their minds. Deniers just keep denying" Simon Schermer, Editor,Skeptic magazine.

In contrast, some one such as yourself who has expressed strong and definite views that AGW is not true cannot call yourself a skeptic. Your views are too definite andseemingly fixed for that - just look at the language you used in your comment - 'twaddle'!

You don't like the word 'denier',even though it is an accurate description of your position - you deny the existance and threat of AGW. So pick another label. Rejectionist? Rejecter? They are just as accurate a description.

But drop the 'skeptic' thing. It is an intellectual fig-leaf. You are not skeptical. Your views are too definite for that label to apply.

Neil

What makes you think that the weather seen recently in Europe is in disagreement with AGW?

AGW predicts two things broadly. Globally, average temperatures will rise. And weather will become more extreme.More heat waves.AND more snow storms.

As for the '...climate "intelligentsia" have been very quiet about the 70 year record cold this year in Russia...' - you do need toget out more Neil.

Discussion of how changes in the Arctic are affecting the Polar Jet Stream, the frequency of' 'blocking' events that lead to weather extremes, increases in sudden warming events in the polar Stratosphere etc. All are in active discussion right now.

But will you read that in USA Today, let alone Steve Goddard!!!! Of course not.

If you want to see what an informed, intelligent blog looks like, try Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog: http://neven1.typepad.com/ Spend some time looking at the daily graphs section, at what is happening in the Arctic. Then contrast that with Goddard!

To get back to the topic of this article, the quality of the information sources people use/have access to can have a serious impact on their opinions.

Take this comment of yours: "and no amount of fiddling the temperature record will make the snow go away!" But it is! Read Neven's post on the decline in snow cover during the Summer months.

Get your imagination out of just the denialosphere and you might discover that some of your sources are actually just full of s&!t

" if you dropped nonsense terms like 'denier' and stuck to sceptic instead. At least that term is accurate."

Sorry - any group that believes in a global conspiracy of scientists cannot in any way be considered to be sceptics.

I have never seen a denier change their mind. They are very much like the creationists of old.

Chris
If you are wondering why people are deserting the global warming Titanic your claptrap story that global warming is causing huge snowfalls is an excellent reason. I have a bridge to sell you.
Non-believers always wondered what would happen when the natural warming ended but I am stunned with the audacity of so-called scientists promoting any whacko theory to keep the climate gravy train running.
When people read in the same paper that there has been no warming for 16 years with Met office saying this will continue for another 5 years and at the same time the "Climate change is accelerating" headline they know BS when they see it. Of course the Met office will now be accused of being Koch funded and a "denier "site.
I will now send my invoice to the funded denial machine if I only knew what the address was :)

Neil, I suggest you'll have an easy time finding an address for your invoice by simply asking a few folks who regularly show up here to play denier-ball, like Nicol or the Marc (with a "C"), or just look at the Glieck expose that lists Aussie groups funded by our Heartland, etc. gang.

By the way, all the indignance about thousands of conspiratorial scientists around the world plotting against the poor old combustion industry is exposed as false by your use of the hackneyed "no warming for 16 years" shill -- I love it when FAs do this, because it then exposes to all that they have no idea what the words "math" and "statistics" mean.

And, it proves how desperate they are to hide from others the easily verified facts of sea rise/expansion, pH drop, and isotropic proofs of everything from warming to increased atmospheric moisture.

Hope you're not as 'sceptical' of your doctors' prescriptions and advice, when it become a serious personal concern.
;]
On the other hand...

As opposed to your claims that the ABC, BBC and Fairfax effectively represent a conspiracy:

"After all, the ABC, the BBC and Faiffax will praise them to the sky regardless of what rubbish they incorporate in their report."

Chris,

You characterise sceptics as individuals who are able to identify shoddy science when they see it. Perhaps you can give us some examples.

I have heard this sort of claim before, and each time I think to myself that the person making this claim has little experience of science. Anybody who has been grilled after giving a talk or presenting a poster at a conference, or who has dealt with reviewers comments after submitting a journal paper, knows very well how much scientists like looking for weaknesses in the work of others. Shoddy science exists only on the fringes, where people either do not subject their work to that sort of scrutiny, or publish in obscure, activist journals (which I will avoid naming).

If you believe you have identified shoddy science, publish your analysis showing it to be shoddy. And if you believe the bulk of climate science is shoddy, ask yourself this question - have the major national scientific bodies around the world all been duped by shoddy science?

Neil,

You are sceptical about the value of computer models for making predictions of the global climate response to increased greenhouse gas levels. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

If you are generally sceptical about the value of computer models, then, if you are ever suffer from a cancer that requires radiotherapy, perhaps you would like to suggest to the radiation therapist that she not use a computer model to determine your treatment regime, but instead goes with her gut instinct.

As to what you call the "deafening silence" regarding the cold winters in parts of the northern hemishphere, might I suggest you relocate your ears. This has been discussed, and is consistent with the warming in northern polar regions being much greater than at lower latitudes. This reduced temperature gradient changes the wind patterns, allowing cold winds to flow from the polar regions into Europe and Asia. Understanding this more fully requires that you picture atmospheric processes in three dimensions. You can find an explanation here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html

Still looking out the window Alex- the horrific northern winters are still there after all the BS and the mental convolutions of so-called scientists trying to bend the facts to fit their failed hypothesis.

"....the horrific northern winters are still there after all the BS and the mental convolutions of so-called scientists trying to bend the facts to fit their failed hypothesis...."

Why is it that deniers are completely incapable of grasping simple concepts?

Firstly, weather is not climate, and you will still get cold days as well as hot days. That's why anyone who thinks you can determine global temperature change by 'looking out the window' is a bloody moron.

Secondly, let me explain basic maths to you. If the overall global average temperature increases by 0.7 degrees, and it is 1 degree hotter in half the world, that means that it is 0.3 degrees colder in the other half. It's called "average" for a reason. But then, you would have learned that in primary school maths if you paid attention.

This is where I part company with these modern climatic conspiracists George - they have settled for a shallow symptomatic analysis of the underlying causes of all our worldly worries of late.

But those of us "in the know" ... who bring a bit of history to the table - know that all this warming, or cooling if you prefer, all this obesity, inflation, debt, unemployment, single parenthood and the decline of western civilisation as we know it - has it's roots buried deep in the manure of metrification. The dead claws of Napoleon still dragging at Europe from beyond the grave.

Did anyone complain about global warming when we had the fair rule of fahrenheit? Did oceans rise when the tides crept along in inchy increments? Remember how much petrol you could buy for one of Her Majesty's pounds sterling? How many more miles you got when it came in god's goodly gallons?

Further evidence? More facts? Just look how far away the shops are in kilometers, or how big one's waist becomes in their accursed millimeters. How worthless everything has become since the 14th February 1966 when we shunned the once proud pound? Even the kids?

No George - the rot set in with the insidious simple sciencyness of the Napoleonic Bureau des Poids et Mesures and their metrifying minions like the Bureau of Meteorology. They lie, they fabricate their isobars and isotherms and make up new colours to frighten us each night on TV.

And these climate denialists are too duped and deluded to see the Truth in front of their very eyes!

Now that's what I'd call a decent conspiracy.

Computer models have their place but when there are too many variables and unknowns they are basically useless. Comparing a failed climate model to a competent radiation treatment regime is ridiculous.
Each of the IPCC reports up to 2007 predicted less snow using your beloved computer models but of course they were wrong as usual and some more way-out theories had to be developed to explain the inexplicable which is Skeptical Science's forte.

Mike
You must have failed Climate Change 101 where the first axiom is that when it warms it is climate and when it gets cold it is weather. I must have missed the bit on averages in all the pure and applied maths I did in electronics engineering but I did do something on graphing so I checked on the global temperature you mentioned.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2013/trend/offset
So we have over a decade of no warming and the northern hemisphere buried in snow and you are wondering why people are disbelieving failed predictions?

Felix MacNeill & Andrew Vincent

I did not, and will not, allege a conspiracy. If you wish to criticise me please stick to what I have said, not what you wish I had said.

"...So we have over a decade of no warming and the northern hemisphere buried in snow and you are wondering why people are disbelieving failed predictions?..."

I am not wondering at all - I know the reason. It is because the world is full of liars and idiots. And the statement that the world is not warming is one of them.

Hey, Peter, wanna take a bet on how quickly the 'metrication meme' actually takes to come back through the echo chamber?

By the way, I presume you know and love G K Chesterton's 'Rolling English Road'. Maddy Prior does a wonderful musical version on 'Flesh and Blood' so you could have th ejoy of filling your local sylvan glades with your booming, manly baritone...that oughta drive those damned Frenches away!

At last, I am not spam, Hi peter. I've been aware for years of this napoleonic conspiracy. I measure my son, who grows rapidly, in feet and inches, I don't want anything interfering with his growth, least of all Napoleon and his faithful shadow. As for my title, which is also my faithful camp-follower, I use this to seek out any random non-believer in science, and to fight as a defender of the earth we all live on. I suspect my title is effective, because we all know how the dreaded feminists are the cause of much unhappiness among men.

Simple bit of research you can do for yourself Neil.

Start googling for references to 'Polar Jet Stream', 'Arctic', 'blocking' - see what you get.

Next, consider this

"A recent study found an overall decrease in Arctic snow-cover extent (snow that covers the Arctic at the end of the spring) from 1967 through 2012, and an acceleration of snow loss after the year 2003. The rate of snow-cover loss in June between 1979 and 2012 was 17.6 percent per decade (relative to the 1979-2000 mean)"

Link here: http://www.livescience.com/26091-arctic-snow-cover-decline.html

Much? Much unhappiness you say Ms Alice? Surely ALL modern miseries of the male can be deftly deposited at the feet of feminism... seems so, to to hear them whine on anyway. That and the fact that no one cares.

At least we should be able to blame on feminists those very few modern miseries not directly attributable to the tyranny of tens.

So don't give them an inch Ms Alice!!! Continue counting your son's progress imperially - he'll be all the taller for it.

Glenn,
No one doubts that the globe is in a warm cycle but the Arctic is only where it has been cyclically many times before contrary to what those pushing the AGW agenda are saying.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23668813?searchTerm=%22climate%20change%22&searchLimits=
Alarmists love to think that Arctic history started with satellites but anecdotal evidence from the early oil industry funded deniers give the lie to the fact that the current Arctic position is unusual. Orwellian efforts to re-write Arctic history have failed as the internet luckily never forgets.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i3ZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1581,5524109&dq=heat+wave+north+pole&hl=en

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49236255?searchTerm=ice%20free%20arctic&searchLimits=
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LlgyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mbYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6209,4507387&dq=heat&hl=en
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/77891667?searchTerm=arctic%20melt&searchLimits=
Of course to the true believer eyewitness accounts mean nothing compared to computer models which can give you the answer you want in the true garbage-in garbage out tradition.
So Glenn ,check the references and check out what really happened to the Arctic which is different to the Goebellian fantasies produced by so-called climate scientists. Happy Googling!

Peter, I've just had a REVELATION, I now know why Barry and his henchmen have declared WAR on all things ENVIRONMENTAL, it's MOTHER earth, not nearly manly enough. I can see men in suits, manly affirmations of sensible progress towards the new packer edifice, men with guns shooting echidnas, no more scientists on our shores. Rise up everyone, grab a handful of sand, anything

Neil Gibson has been sucked in by the notorious climate crank Steven Goddard who has obviously spent quite a bit of time cherry picking some Northern Hemisphere snow cover data to create the false impression that NH snow cover is increasing.

Of course Gibson the "fake" skeptic was sucked in immediately because Goddard was telling him what he wanted to believe.

Here are the actual charts (1967 -2012) from Rutgers University

Winter NH - not much change
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

Sprint NH - fairly precipitous drop.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

Thats right folks - Gibson has it completely back to front - who would have guessed?

Here is another article describing the dramatic decline in Arctic snow cover in June
" between 1979 and 2012, June snow cover extent decreased by 17.6 percent per decade compared to the 1979–2000 average."

Here is an article from SKS giving some background to the Goddard scam.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-snow-cover.htm

Mike - it may be a surprise to you but I was commenting on the article which was about surveys of people's attitude to global warming. My statement that December was a record snow extent in the Northern hemisphere is borne out by Rutgers figures. Your own references also show fairly stable winter snow over the last 30 years when snow was supposed to be"a thing of the past" People having record snow falls will tend to be dismissive of outlandish global warming claims and that is my point.
I don't think it is cherry picking to say that December 2012 NH snow was a record and NH winter snow has not declined over the past decades . Alarmists are now paying the penalty for crying wolf too often
and are understandably having problems with getting people to believe them.

"...the Gliek expose...". Oh you mean the serial forger Dr Gliek. If that's your best shot you've loaded blanks.

And WTF is an isotropic proof? Are there anisotropic proofs as well? Links to both would be good. Are the oceans and atmosphere isotropic except in infinitesimal volumes?

Perhaps you're talking about proofs in tensor calculus, given that all tensors (except rank-1) are isotropic. But as you point out, FA's have no idea about "math" (I prefer to call it "mathematics") and "statistics" so there's probably not much point in bringing that up.

Or are you just flinging in a totally irrelevant scientific adjective to show your <gasp>superior scientific knowledge and credentials</gasp> over we great unwashed. Surely not - the moderators wouldn't allow such hubris here.

Neil, we agree, you must have missed lots in yopur engineering classes.

Since we're both electrical engineers, let;s talk between ourselves, and we can use thatt nice graph of your favorite "16 years" of temps that Dianna gave us...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&feature

Others can follow while we see if you really did pass engineering-design classes.
;]
You had a boss or two, let's suppose, and your designs had to work over stress ranges of voltage, temperature, humidity, etc., right? Mine did, so I assume you were conscientious too.

Bring up the first graph at the link above -0- the nice red wiggles showing an upward trend, but sizable wiggles.

Imaging the red curve is some actual measure of stress on the system you designed -- could be voltage, temperature, etc.

If your boss is supposed to deliver a salable product using your design, then how would you design the pieces of your product? Suppose, like a real engineer, you wanted to ensure your system worked reliably under stresses you might image from your knowledge & measurements.

How then would you design it to go a bit beyond the horizontal axis' 2010 mark (not years, just some stress input)?

Would you use some method to draw a line/curve through all the data points (red curvy line), so you could estimate how high your system's response to stress of 2010 would go? Or, would you just take the last 16 points, from 2009 back and draw a line through them?

Careful with your answer Neil, your boss could fire you for faking engineering-design ability.
;]
And wow, just think if it were 1959! What regression fakery could you have used to get yourself fired in the 1960s!

So Neil, if you truly believe the "16-year no-warming" lie, what did you ever design that still works?
;]

Chris - let's start with the large fossil fuel corporations including Exxon mobil who may have some small part in denialism (not scepticism which is part of science) and then we could move on to the Koch Brothers and their numerous denialist organisations. Then we could suggest you read Merchants of Doubt - and take it from there

Alex - I see you are having to resort to ad hominem attacks which surprised me.! FYI the company I founded manufactures precision electricity revenue meters .As the Japanese now own the company and as they are still selling hundreds of thousands of meters throughout Europe and Asia I assume they are still working well in my retirement.
You are talking like King Canute as if you can control the climate . Wrt to firing people I assure you that if any of my engineers brought me half-baked and fiddled data similar to that quoted by yourself and climate"scientists" as gospel they would definitely be in danger of losing their job.
The global temperature has plateaued at the moment and will either go up or down from here. You think up and I think down as the process is mainly natural. Hadcrut December global temperature anomaly has come in at a tiny .27 Deg C above average which is a good start for me!

Koch bros? Exxon? Oreskes? Wot, no Heartland? But others have mentioned them haven’t they.

Heartland has a budget of six million dollars this year, across all their activities. And that includes dealing with fraudulent documents attributed to them and dealing with criminal activities like Gleick’s identity and document theft . Exxon contributed 28 million to sceptics over ten years – a fraction of what they spend on supporting outsiders. Exxon have provided money to both sides on this issue, but that is clearly unacceptable to those who feel a need to control the narrative.

These sums of money are so tiny that the allegations that the people who question the more outlandish claims of the alarmists are somehow influenced by them is absurd.

Greenpeace alone has a budget of four hundred million dollars every year, and their continued revenue depends on keeping people alarmed. I haven’t believed a thing Greenpeace has had to say, on any topic, since Brent Spar. Personally, if a Greenpeace spokesman were to announce that the sun were going to rise in the east tomorrow morning I would look for a second opinion from a reliable source.

Koch, Heartland, Exxon – these are just bogeyman terms, meant to frighten children and the ignorant, but meaningless in the real world. If you want to bring people back to your point of view try using real arguments.

Wow Chris! "criminal activities like Gleick’s identity and document theft " -- you mean Heartland fools sent him an email with all their payoffs to fake scientists around the world exposed? You mean that "criminal activity", Chris?

And "These sums of money are so tiny" -- you mean Heartland, etc. found Aussies & others so desperate for cash that they'd lie for peanuts? That's what "tiny" means, Chris?

Be careful, handlers don't like it when even the chaff they pay "tiny" for is so easily dismissed.
;]

Alex,

Just because you are happy to misrepresent the information he obtained doesn't make Gleick's actions any less criminal.

Chris, Chris, Chris, facts obtained are facts obtained. Heartland gave out inconvenient facts. Cry in your own beer. They don't need you.
;]

Alex,

I am aware of this, which i why I am so surprised at your willingness to so completely misrepresent the contents of the documents Dr Gleick stole on the occasion he indulged in his criminal misrepresentation.

Chris - Oh dear, you're incorrigible

You mean, Chris, that facts 'illegally' obtained are no longer facts?

This is a wimpy argument even for a denier.
;]

Alex,

What on earth makes you imagine I said anything even remotely resembling that? If you would offer some examples where the documents say anything remotely like you are alleging then we might have a basis for discussion.

What Gleick did was criminal. Now, some may approve of it nonetheless, and that is a legitimate topic for discussion, but whether the basic act was or was not criminal is not rationally open to dispute. It was. Claims to the contrary are just wishful thinking.

If you wish to talk about what the documents had to say, then fine, move on.

Chris, whatever you think your point is, the Heartland folks released info that documented their dirty paws invading Aussie climate discourse.

Facts are facts, no matter all your hand wringing over how they came out.

Sigh,

Alex, the problem is, you have presented nothing which can be discussed.

Tell me what these facts are, the details. You are making assertions about what they show, but you are seriously short on any detail or evidence for the assertions.

Another issue: Do you have some problem with foreigners influencing local discourse? I tend to look at what is presented, not at who is doing the presentation. If a particular datum or idea comes from furreners I don't give a toss, my concern is with the datum or idea. You seem to disagree.

Poor Chris, he's sighing because he can't Google Glieck's data from Heartland like the rest of us!

This is good though: "Do you have some problem with foreigners influencing local discourse? "

We in the US just heard about your new oil discoveries. Remember what we did to get Iraq's oil?

Now what was that about "foreigners" influencing your nice continent, Chris?

Hope you're getting something of value from whomever you're servicing with absurd comments like these, Chris.
;]

Alex,

I certainly can google the documents, but you are making assertions I don't recognise from those documents. Are you prepared to justify those vague assertions, or am I to assume that baseless smear is all you can offer?

Put up, justify your claims or withdraw them.

So, Chris, how long have you read this site? Do you not remember the various phony 'scientists', writing as "adjunct professors" at Aussie schools writing fibs about warming, etc. for just $1600/month from Heartland funds? Others here know it.

Do you really think playing the "you got no data" game is going to bear fruit for you?

Alex,

You truly live in a fantasy world, don’t you.

You really think that these trivial sums of money are enough to corrupt? Fibs? Really? Is money paid to alarmists also equally corrupting? Is it possible that there are people of honour and integrity who can look at stuff like the climategate emails and think to themselves, “these guys are utterly corrupt” instead of thinking “what heroes”?

Seriously. You do talk bollocks at times. If this is the standard of your position than you don’t have one.
$1600? Seriously? Don’t know about you, but that couldn’t buy me, and I am broke.

Ian Plimer right? Wasn’t he the one who got this trivial amount? You must really despise the bloke, to think that he could be bought for such a trivial sum. An alternative could be that they see eye to eye, so he gets a grant to continue his work? Like, like, like, well, like just about any academic scientist who goes hunting for support? Has every scientist who accepts a grant been corrupted as well?

What if another scientist were getting money from that crook Gleick’s foundation? Would that be just as corrupting? Of is that crook Gleick’s money in some way different?

Just who did forge that strategy document in Gleick’s stash? And why did it single out a nonentity like Gleick as an adversary, by name? Got any ideas?

Sorry, unless you can do better than this twaddle you have nothing.

$1600, what a joke.

What's currently happening in the Northern hemisphere is amazing. For those interested in the actual science behind what's happening.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stratospheric-phenomenon-is-bringing-frigid-cold-to-us-15479

Good to see you continue to fight for reason.

Have not been well enough to debate on areas where we do part company - not because I lack anything to say!

Am keeping up as a mere spectator at TC ATM.

If some nuff-nuff dares to present the "climate cooling for 16 years" bunkum, please present the following. True it is simple, but very clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&feature

Actally Suzy I reckon the great AGW Debate isn't really about the science at all ... its about belief systems - what we believe is true - the natural order of things. It is a desperate attempt to make sure the future looks like the past but bigger. The science is secondary - it is really shadow-boxing ... the underlying issues are far more complex, personal and frightening.

It may be "shadow boxing" today, because of the very successful, moneyed interests involved in combatting elimination of combustion.

But, decades ago, it was a clear, scientific, engineering and political activity to promote elimination of combustion power and pollution.

The combustion industry now is dearly wedded to disinformation and loves argumentation that will generate any delay in dealing with the industry's damages to our descendents' futures. David Koch is quite open about this, for the long term.

Hi Peter, yes, I think you are right, or more exactly as I am discovering, will (to act) in humans is never solely the result of knowledge/science/data, but of the much discredited 'irrational' parts of ourselves. Even those who believe their rationality is responsible for their actions and reactions are actually subject to their own irrational drives (desires/feelings) in all these decisions. Since the will straddles both parts and finds its expression in the tensions and balances of the two, when one half is 'denied' one cannot draw on a constructive will to action. Yes, when it comes down to it, science has little to do with it all, but to examine oneself and ones drives and underlying desires is far more confronting than throwing out a seemingly 'rational' smokescreen :)

Didn't mean "shadow boxing" in that sense Alex - more that it's about hurling allegations and accusations and denials and throwing anything they can grab onto to just make all this stuff go away.

Because it's too hard. Literally inconceivable. This notion that things in future can be - indeed must be - different.

At it's core I reckon denialism is a failure of the conservative mindset. An underdeveloped imagination if you like ... in which they are unable to conceive of anything beyond the reality they have been presented with. It's just too scary. Unnecessary. Unnatural.

The fact that it is science that has become the battleground is perhaps secondary. It reminds me of the endless tis/tisn'ts of economics - a field in which denialism is a well established school of thought. THE dominant school of thought, actually.

Barnacles on the Titanic, Alex.

Got it. Don't worry about the barnacles, take the ship back and replace those rivets made from recycled iron and put roofs on those damned 'waterproof' compartments!

And, instruct anyone who could ever be in the wheelhouse to head straight for a berg, not try to stop or go around one that's staring right at you! Even the original Titanic could have survived that.
;]

If you listen very carefully Alex you can hear the barnacles calling out... "Full speed ahead Cap'n... let's she what she's made of."

;] Peter. There was ana laysis done of the ship's tructure and that had it hit straight on, at the speed they were moving, there would have been enough crumple in front of thew forward 'watertight' compartment that the ship would have survived, even been navigable.
Just think if they'd had airbags.

Ah, yes! Those deep thinkers at the Global Warming Policy Foundation throw more fuel on the fire. Good to know they still have some people baffled ...

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/ lists some real giants, like Bob Carter, Prof. Plimer, Professor William Happer, Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Ross McKitrick. Good to know the denialosphere still has such luminaries piling obfuscation upon misinformation.

"If there are future outcomes regarding temperature, sea levels etc we will simply have to learn to live with them". Good luck explaining that to the residents of Bangladesh and other low-lying areas.