Climate Change: Nothing We Can Do About It?

Don't get me started, Jim. :)

Okay, LOL.

There is plenty that can be done. Will it? Probably, not a chance. . .

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.....

Just because we know what needs to be done and we have the ability to do it doesn't mean we'll actually go to the trouble to save ourselves. (Stupid, aren't we.)

Well what are you doing to save yourself Larry?

Dan,

Save myself from which threat? Climate change offers lots of threats. I don't have all day to answer your usual questions.

I assumed by your claim that "we know what need to be done" that you would be engaged in those activities.

Dan,

Yes, I do more than my part. But I need not list them all unless you have no idea what needs to be done. You do know ways to use less energy, right?

Just because we know what needs to be done and we have the ability to do it doesn't mean we'll actually go to the trouble to save ourselves. (Stupid, aren't we.)

Only some people, Larry, and that being a dwindling number, are still denying the science and intentionally being misleading. Not surprisingly the few buffoonish denialists are mostly non-science ideologues who rely on anonymous bloggers associated with fossil fuel and libertarian lobbying organizations.

The fossil fuel funded lobbyists deny the science - and lie outright about it - for the obvious reason that solutions will most likely mean moving to renewable, sustainable energy and away from nonrenewable, dirty, unsustainable energy sources on which the fossil fuel makes their record breaking multiple tens of billions of dollars in profit every year. As the recent revelation that the Koch brothers have used secret shady front groups to hide the millions they seed to the denialist industry shows, they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal from the American public to protect their profits.

The libertarian/"conservative" lobbyists deny the science because it serves their ideological purpose of hiding their corporate members from the kind of rational regulation that would protect the health of the public. Given that the Koch brothers have also funded the fake conservative tea party groups (who dishonor real conservatism by misappropriating the term to hide their bigotry, dishonesty, and delusions), it's clear that their really is a wide overlap between the fossil fuel funded and the right wing ideologue funded denialist industries.

Meanwhile, honest Americans, honest conservatives, honest liberals, and the honest public ranging everywhere in between are working hard to find rational solutions to the unequivocal science that tells us the planet is warming and our burning of fossil fuels is the main cause.

It's easy to see who is honest and who is dishonest.

David,

You are right on all points.

Right, David, but Dan and his friends have a lot of money and are determined to thwart any effort to stop any attempts to reverse global warming.
They spout the same stuff that tobacco companies did fifty years ago...it isn't proven, let's study it some more, etc.
The anti-climate-change cabal doesn't care if climate change is real. They are only interested in prolonging studies and delaying action because they are making tons of profits and want to preserve the status quo. Dan is either active in that conspiracy, or he's a dupe.
I have gone round-and-round with Dan. I can tell you that no matter what facts you present, he will deny them and demand more "proof" of global warming. Anyone who understands scientific inquiry knows tha scientific knowledge is based on an accumulation of data through observations.
Dan will now come back and give you carefully selected data (it's called data mining) that supports his view that the earth is not warming...or if it is, it's not due to human activities.
Nobody can prove that his denial is wrong.
But reasonable people...and the vast majority of scientists with knowledge of climate science...have concluded that there is a solid case for human causality.
The prudent course, then, is to take corrective measures.
Dan and his ilk will have none of this.
They deny, deny, deny...and urge all people to just ignore the danger.
Unlike prehistoric animals who suffered extinction from climate change, humans have an opportunity to actually try to save themselves.
If we fail to do that...we deserve our fate.
It is just too bad that people like Dan...who will suffer the same fate as everyone else...don't see the logic in trying to avert our fate.

Bert,
Is it the fact that you can't contend with the information I provide that leads you to lie about the position I take?
You of course can provide a quote of me saying that I don't believe in climate change can't you? Or that I don't believe that the planet has warmed right?

" I can tell you that no matter what facts you present,"

What facts have you presented Bert? Here let me help...."The warmest year on record"...right isn't that about all you and your fellow global warmist alarmists have put forth as proof in human caused global warming recently?

" Anyone who understands scientific inquiry knows tha scientific knowledge is based on an accumulation of data through observations."

Observation:
The atmospherics concentrations of C02 has risen from 360 PPM in 1998 to over 390 today....The mean temperature of the planet has not hardly risen in those 15 years.
Observations like that Bert?

"Dan will now come back and give you carefully selected data (it's called data mining) that supports his view that the earth is not warming...or if it is, it's not due to human activities."

LOL! Well yah duh Bert LOL!
I present information, research, data that I have found (data mined) that supports my position and refutes your position and the reason you are so upset about it is that you don't have any information, research or data to counter what I post.


"humans have an opportunity to actually try to save themselves."

Problem is Bert that what you want to do (impose a carbon tax) to save us all won't do anything except to cause others suffer under it's financial burden and force others to make make choices that are not as environmentally friendly as they might without a carbon tax.

Bert,

Dan has provided illustrations of your points. How kind of him.

Larry,
I find it interesting that Bert would think that by telling people that I will counter his position with real facts some how makes his position more valid?

"Yes, I do more than my part."

Good for you! But if climate change is so important shouldn't you be doing all that you can?

[Denialists] spout the same stuff that tobacco companies did fifty years ago...it isn't proven, let's study it some more, etc.

Exactly, Bert. In fact, some of the people and organizations who now deny man-made climate change are the very same people and organizations who denied that smoking caused cancer.

For example, the Heartland Institute provides funds to various front groups, including those fronted by Fred Singer. Both Heartland and Singer have a long history of being funded by the tobacco industry to deny the science. Heartland continues to receive funds from the tobacco industry.

Singer is also part of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right wing lobbying firm that has long been behind denial of science. One of the few actual scientists that denialists like to cite is Roy Spencer. Spencer is best known for two things - the major errors in analysis that resulted in making claims exactly opposite of actual reality and being on the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute. Oreskes and Conway cataloged the role of the Institute in science denial in their book Merchants of Doubt.

Recently it was revealed that the billionaire Koch brothers have been using a variety of dishonest mechanisms to hide the fact that they have been funding organizations to deny the science of man-made climate change. The Koch brothers made their billions off of fossil fuels and deforestation and have used secret shady front groups to hide the millions they seed to the denialist industry. This shows the extent the denialist industry will go to lie, cheat, and steal from the American public to protect their profits. Of course, the Koch brothers and their lobbying arms are well known to have funded and organized the tea party to help them avoid being taxed on their massive profits.

So here we have the climate denialist industry using the same tactics, and some of the same people and organizations, to deny the reality of man-made climate change just as they denied the reality that smoking caused cancer.

Which is why denialists lie about the science. Every. Single. Time.

It was dishonest then and it is dishonest now.

Dan,

Shouldn't I be doing all that I can? I am doing all that I can short of suicide. But because I am not omniscient I can't tell whether my suicide would actually help. Since my economic system would have a huge beneficial effect it may be that I can do more good by staying alive to promote that idea. In the meantime I restrict my own use of energy and try to spread the word.

Now tell me what you are doing to solve the problems of global warming.

"Now tell me what you are doing to solve the problems of global warming."

In light of your lack of specificity in describing what you are doing Larry I'll just respond with, I am doing all that I feel is appropriate at this time.....Just like you!

Dan,

I specified that I am trying to get people to adopt my system. That's quite specific. So try again.

"Roberts writes:"

Well Roberts is wrong Period!
As is usual with you progressives you try to pigeonhole conservatives by mischaracterizing them all in a particular demeaning manner.
The vast majority of conservatives do not deny climate change.

"Climate Change: Nothing We Can Do About It?"

Well....Yes Jim that is correct....But that doesn't mean that we don't try to help keep our society as clean as we can, after all we don't want our cities to be polluted like many of the cities in China.
We want to promote clean energy as much as we can in a reasonable manner.

My title ended with a question mark. Of course there is something we can do about it. The bigger question is will we do anything about it?

Jim,
The biggest question is what we do about it, do we allow the President to continue to push for a carbon tax that will have no effect on the climate or the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and will be a financial burden on all of us?

There are other things that we can do that will have as much or more of an impact without the financial burden.

8-12-12 CNNMoney Report excerpt: "While the carbon tax plan is drawing attention now, the idea itself is not new in conservative circles.

For example, a 2007 paper published by the American Enterprise Institute, an influential conservative group, argued that a carbon tax would be preferable to other ways of reducing greenhouse gases such as mandatory emission limits. "

They're only for it till someone agrees with them from the other side. The ACA is another Republican idea subsequently mightily opposed, when a progressive advocated it.

David Roberts, Grist
Roberts writes: "The first conservative line of defense against climate action is outright denial that climate change exists. The second is that the climate is changing, but it's not our fault and won't be so bad and isn't worth worrying about. Both those are getting tougher."

The patterns of denial are well known and Roberts nails it. He could actually expand on it to list five stages:

1) It's not happening

2) It's happening but we don't know why

3) It's happening but it is natural

4) It's happening but it is good for us

5) It's happening but we can't do anything about it

Of course, these five stages aren't necessarily linear. Some of the most egregiously ignorant and/or dishonest denialists will shift back and forth between these and other stages, caring not that they contradict themselves with each succeeding sentence. The delusional narrative they have created allows them to self-contradict, lie, and otherwise do whatever they have to do to "support" their idiotic narrative. Knowing that everyone knows they are a) wrong, and b) intentionally wrong is bizarrely converted into some sort of validation. Frankly, it's right out of Psyche 101, but these people have invested their entire persona in what they know to be false that they cannot now admit they are knowingly wrong. Delusion is a powerful force.

In any case, the science is the science. And over 100+ years of science absolutely, positively, and unequivocally demonstrates that man's habit of burning fossil fuels is warming our planet and we must take action now.

Well said, David.

"And over 100+ years of science absolutely, positively, and unequivocally demonstrates that man's habit of burning fossil fuels is warming our planet and we must take action now."
Dan will deny it...and quote some fossil fuel flack who says we need to study it for another 20 or 30 or 50 years.

We still have flat earthers.

Interestingly enough the February issue of the Smithsonian magazine has a short article about greenhouse gasses. According to the methane trapped in Greenland's ice sheet, mankind's activities started producing enough methane to affect the earth's atmosphere about the time of the Roman Empire. Of course their gasses don't even come close to the amount we produce today.

That IS interesting, Susan. Supposedly the warming of our oceans could release enormous amounts of methane trapped on the ocean floor.

I'd heard about that some time ago. It gave me visions of the ocean bubbling up and emitting a giant fart. Sure hope no clown with a lighter is around when that happens.

And so, to bed.

As I've said a zillion times and have written about as well, there is virtually no one I have ever heard of who says that climate doesn't change. The second line of defense isn't even expressed that accurately, but it's so much better than what the writer has claimed the first is that it's almost passable.

Indeed, Sue. It is the Nature of Climate...and we know it. The "West Coast Swing" of Golf Tournaments have been plagued by unusually-harsh and cold weather this year, and the Tournament in the Desert has been delayed two days running...by Frost. For the first time in 3 decades...

That's interesting information, Mark-John.

Sue, I thought of doing a reply about the CAGWARTs inability to distinguish 'cherry picking' (the approach of selecting snippets of information from wide ranging reports to present a skewed impression of the evidence) and data mining (scouring sites for relevant data) but then we have all wasted so much time trying to educate them to a level that would enable them to graduate from kindergarden, it's just not worth it.

M-J K,
Amazing isn't it how all this unprecedented heat is causing frost, blizzards, ice storms and such all over the northern hemisphere at this time of year.

Ian, the thought of you "educating" PhD Climatologists is hilarious... and pathetic.

I'm pretty sure Ian is referring to a response to this post, Einstein. If you think Jim and David Roberts are PhD climatologists you're even more spent than you let on.

Jim, they don't. Over 95% of the IPCC panel agree globasl warming is a reality. You want to know what the real scientists think, check out Sue's posts on climate change, or Grahams, or Dan's, or mine. We bring links to scientific papers published in serious journals and academic letters and the deluded idiots in this thread dismiss them in favour of the vravings of psychologists, sociologists, star gazers and railway clerks.
Railway clerks? Yeah, the head of the IPCC was a bean counter for Indian National Railway.

Chuckybum,
As usual Mr. Knownothing, you pretend to knowledge you do not possess. You haven't a clue what I've done. Educating PhD Climatologists (which I never claimed I'd done, as Sue, a person who can read noted, my reference was to hysterical CAGWARTs in this thread) would be a task more difficult than all the seven labours of Hercules combined.
Now here's a bit of education for you Chuckles. Stretch out either arm, and bend it so the fingers touch your chest. See that pointy bit sticking out away from you, that's your elbow. Now put both you hands behind you and feel around until you find a big fat lump. That's your arse. Now in future you have no excuse for not knowing your arse from your elbow.
In the next lesson we will try to lift your IQ into double figures, they you'll be smarter than the rest of the CAGWARTs put together.

Don't resort to personal attacks, Ian. Not on MY posts. Let me rephrase my question: "Ask yourselves one simple question: For what POSSIBLE REASON would over 95% of the IPCC agree that global warming is a reality?

Jim, as anyone with a brain knows 95% of the world's scientific community no not agree that anthropogenic global warming is a reality what question do you want me to answer.

And because were I to bring 10,000 pieces of evidence in support of my answer you would dismiss them all as not relevant because they do not affirm your prejudices, why would I waste my time?

Like you said, you're wasting your time, Ian. They have what they've learned along the way somehow to be a sort of hierarchy of credibility. Government and anything to do with government is of the highest order of credibility. The only exception to that would include anything to do with government that is right of center, of course.

They can be scientists of the most renowned educational backgrounds, but if the government has those on its payroll in disagreement with them, their hierarchy of credibility trumps all reason.

An example:

The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.
All the Ice Melted back and Glaciers receded because of The Neanderthals were building too many wood fires causing the atmosphere to warm up thus causing global warming... LOL

Climate Change... notice the NEW EARTH SHATTERING language they are now using. First it was GLOBAL WARMING!
The fact is is that Climate Change is as normal to Earth as a Cup of Tea in England in the mourn.

Don't give me that "Wasting your time" BS, Ian, Answer the question.

And if you want to trade insults with someone, do it elsewhere.

Excuse Me Jim;

I have a question for you. If Global Warming was real or "Climate Change" as you all use a wording now... Why is it -13 right now where I am living in America?

Well it's been below zero here in MN, too Last I heard, on Feb 2nd we can expect season daily fluctuations of below zero temps in the middle of winter. WTF does that have to do with long term trends of global warming?

I REPEAT: ANSWER MY QUESTION.

There are NO LONG TERM TRENDS Jim. The Climate Changes and has been changing from Warm Periods to Cold Periods for as Long As Earth has been formed.
All the Ice Glaciers Melted back in the last Warming Period, Industry wasn't here. Explain Why all the Glaciers melted and receded if there wasn't Industries Producing CO 2's in the Atmosphere?

If everyone freezes to death in the meantime, it makes no difference to the lethal warming trends we say there are. Don't you understand that? WTF is wrong with you denialists?

optimus, because that is weather not climate.

Optimus: All the Ice Glaciers Melted back in the last Warming Period, Industry wasn't here.

Jim Marshall: optimus, because that is weather not climate.

Huh?

"If Global Warming was real or "Climate Change" as you all use a wording now... Why is it -13 right now where I am living in America?"

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events).

Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world; these latter effects are currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.

Thank you Tony, you described the difference better than I could have.

The link you have provided is to YouTube, not to the words you lifted and used as your own with no citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
in case it doesn't take again

"The link you have provided is to YouTube, not to the words you lifted and used as your own with no citation."

Deflection. The link was to further support the point I was making, not to cite anything that I posted. If you'd bothered to watch the vid, it was of one of the world's leading experts on climate change, and what he had to say explained why "Why is it -13 right now where I am living in America?" is not a valid argument.

There are NO LONG TERM TRENDS. The Climate Changes and has been changing from Warm Periods to Cold Periods for as Long As Earth has been formed.
All the Ice Glaciers Melted back in the last Warming Period, Industry wasn't here. Explain Why all the Glaciers melted and receded if there wasn't Industries Producing CO 2's in the Atmosphere?

No, Tony himself did not describe anything at all, but that's the kind of thing you people respect. And that's why you dismiss Climategates so there's really no discussion with that kind of mindset as far as I'm concerned.

And it's also a great example of just how observant you people are because if you've ever read anything he's ever written before, you'd know that isn't his verbiage, and neither his level of expression.

Deflection to the fact that you wanted people to think you wrote that? Yes, it was and too bad.

Could be as simple as a long term sun cycle. Proof is there that we have contributed although none can say it just our contribution causing a problem.

Weather is local, climate as used in climate change is global. A warming globally can cause significant cooling in localized areas.

"Deflection to the fact that you wanted people to think you wrote that? Yes, it was and too bad."

And now you're making an assumption, to further deflect from the point I made. It's clear that you're not here to have an honest discussion on the matter.

Point is Jim M. is that This is a N-A-T-U-R-A-L manifestation on this Planet we call earth. There have been both Global Warming and Cooling periods on Earth for well over 4 billion years.

"Could be as simple as a long term sun cycle. Proof is there that we have contributed although none can say it just our contribution causing a problem."

Exactly. No one's saying we are solely responsible for the problem, but we're definitely adding to it and dramatically speeding up the process.

Really T.S.? How long are you going to ignore my Questions and Talking Points?

I answered your initial question. Mr. Marshall answered the question that followed. Is it necessary for me to respond to it as well, with basically the same answer?

Jim,
As you have still not asked a question but simply repeated a fallacy without producing any evidence in support of it I'm still not sure what you want from me. But I'll give it a go:

Read this NYT report on The Norwegian Climate Sensitivity Study

or this:

Global warming more complex than we thought

or this:

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

or this:

scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

and this:

NYT - hundreds of scientists meet to challenge global warming consensus

and

the Union of Concerned Scientists provides this list of organisations sceptical about the science that the consensus is based on

and then there's that inconvenient business about the climate models on which projections were based being exposed as fundamentally flawed.

well OK, that's a blog. No serious scientist would agree would they? Depends whether you think NASA are serious or a bunch of young earth creationists and right wing nut jobs

and there's more from those guys who brought you the fake moon landing:

NASA Lowers estimate of Carbon Dioxide warming effect

And here's a page that explains why the models are wrong with a nice opener from Freeman Dyson

Why Climate Modelling Is Not Climate Science

Now that had better be enough for you because when I searched for stuff that might help you understand that (a) you 95% of scientists is a fallacy and (b) why the so called consensus (of 77 out of several thousand climatologists) is based on seriously flawed data I got over a million results and I'm not going to list them all.

Stick to your point at 2:29, Optimus. We move on too quickly, allowing them to deflect.

They cannot refute or explain away that statement...because it is the Truth.

"They cannot refute or explain away that statement"

Nor would anyone need to - it's not relevant to the argument, as I already pointed out.

Tony Stark Feb 2, 2013, 2:32pm EST

No one's saying we are solely responsible for the problem, but we're definitely adding to it and dramatically speeding up the process.

"Apparently some people think of climate change as they do about rape, eh?"

BTW Jim, as you start the main article with this grossly insulting statement aimed at those who do not agree with your bigoted attitude on this issue aren't you being a bit ... you know ... hypocritical in telling others not to trade insults? Let's see if you will answer my question?

"BTW Jim, as you start the main article with this grossly insulting statement aimed at those who do not agree..."

Perhaps special attention to Jim's use of the word "some" might clear that up for you. Not to mention, nothing Jim wrote in his article singled out anyone specifically, whereas your insults in this comments section have been in direct response to others.

T.S.;

You explained nothing.

This is a N-A-T-U-R-A-L manifestation on this Planet we call earth. There have been both Global Warming and Cooling periods on Earth for well over 4 billion years.

There are NO LONG TERM TRENDS. The Climate Changes and has been changing from Warm Periods to Cold Periods for as Long As Earth has been formed.
All the Ice Glaciers Melted back in the last Warming Period, Industry wasn't here. Explain Why all the Glaciers melted and receded if there wasn't Industries Producing CO 2's in the Atmosphere?

Global Warmest-Climate Changers want Us Critical Thinking people to believe in their Dogma when it just doesn't litigate any real factual truth. There are Top Scientists around the world who refute the Global Warmest Scientists and vice verse.

I do not believe in Global Warming for one reason and one reason only ...

"This is a N-A-T-U-R-A-L manifestation on this Planet we call earth. There have been both Global Warming and Cooling periods on Earth for well over 4 billion years."

And no Scientist can argue different to that fact.

Later, have fun ya'll.

"You explained nothing."

I said your question was answered.

"I do not believe in Global Warming for one reason and one reason only ..."

And that proclamation of willful neglect to examine all factors contributing to climate change is why you'll never understand it.

"This is a N-A-T-U-R-A-L manifestation on this Planet we call earth. There have been both Global Warming and Cooling periods on Earth for well over 4 billion years."

The National Academy of Science released a short video explaining why there is a greater than 90% chance that the global warming trend over the past 50 to 60 years is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emissions and not natural cycles.

Phoney Snark,
Two words, pot, kettle.
and that isn't racist

Ian, these are the people who fancy themselves the "intellectuals." Humourous, isn't it?

Ah, reduced to personal attacks. Typical.

Excellent video, Tony, from the National Academy of Sciences.

As you know, Tony, every major scientific organization, every National Academy of Sciences, nearly every actual climate scientist, 100+ years of science, over 100,000 peer-reviewed research studies, and well-known physics demonstrates beyond any doubt that man's burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.

Versus some arrogantly ignorant non-science buffoons whose entire purpose is to saturate comments threads like this one with falsehoods, irrelevancies, and frankly, example after example proving both that they don't know what they are talking about and don't care that everyone else can see that they don't know what they are talking about. They will continue to deny the science in every way possible. Forever. Because that is what denialists do. Deny and lie. Forever. Just as the Koch-owned tea party has trained them to dishonestly do.

Giving people who argue that Elvis is alive more information proving Elvis is dead won't educate those who choose not to be educated, and it won't make Elvis come back alive. Enabling denialists doesn't make them stop being denialists; it encourages them to waste everyone's time even more.

Of course, acknowledging their buffoonery will simply result in more comment saturation, more personal attacks, and more ego-stroking to save face. Frankly it's rather pathetic. But that's what denialists and dishonest people do.

Meanwhile, honest people are taking responsibility and working towards solutions. Over 100 years of science unequivocally demonstrates we are warming the planet. While denialists hold back American ingenuity and American innovation and American jobs (or British ingenuity, innovation, and jobs), China surges forward into the lead developing the energy technology of the future. Americans can take the lead as soon as we ignore the buffoons that deny reality.

"China surges forward into the lead developing the energy technology of the future." Why don't you go live there, then, David? Here's another video for you.

In case the hyper-link doesn't show up: http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=682654

I have a hard time responding to this right wing, oil industry, Koch Bros. junk science other than to say that your politics or religion cloud your judgement. Science precludes ignorance.

I don't know why that comment would follow that video because it's only a testimony to what everyone already knows about China that's a fact. They are the leaders in greenhouse gas emissions. If I were one of you people, I wouldn't use China as the stellar example to be followed because of its leadership position in future energy technology, as David pointed out. Then again, to be one of you people I'd have to be stupid enough to use China as an example to emulate, especially starting out with, "Meanwhile, honest people are taking responsibility and working towards solutions." Oh, to be the "honest people" killing their present population while the country "surges forward" with solutions!

For a change, Sue, I must agree. China is such a polluter that Beijing is considered the worlds most polluted city.

Why don't you go live there, then, David?

I've been there, hence the reason I can speak from knowledge. However, I prefer being in America. Which is why I'm taking responsibility for the realities of the science instead of, like you, choosing to be flippant, ignorant, and working against American interests. One wonders why you want America to be beholden to China.

Goodbye

Then again, I don't want to seem narrow-minded to you broad-minded "liberals." If people are the major problem to the warming of the planet then the most expedient solution would be to eliminate them. So what's a little genocide in an overpopulated country, anyway? And what's a little more genocide among concerned nations for the greater good? Am I getting broad-minded enough yet?
'

"Versus some arrogantly ignorant non-science buffoons whose entire purpose is to saturate comments threads like this one with falsehoods, irrelevancies, and frankly, example after example proving both that they don't know what they are talking about and don't care that everyone else can see that they don't know what they are talking about. They will continue to deny the science in every way possible. Forever. Because that is what denialists do. Deny and lie. Forever."

Indeed. Insults and "why don't you go live there" remarks are the equivalent of a small child that lost an argument and has no other recourse but to stick their tongue out and give a dirty look. That's when you realize that they had no intention of participating in adult debate and further correspondence would be a waste of time.

Then again, I don't want to seem narrow-minded to you broad-minded "liberals."

I'm not a liberal. You do realize that is a "tell" for those who can't defend their positions, right? To accuse any honest knowledgeable person of being a liberal (or conservative or, God forbid, a Catholic).

If people are the major problem to the warming of the planet then the most expedient solution would be to eliminate them.

That is by far one of the most irresponsible things you've ever said, which is saying something in itself. How embarrassing for you.

So what's a little genocide in an overpopulated country, anyway?

Even more irresponsible.

And what's a little more genocide among concerned nations for the greater good?

More

Am I getting broad-minded enough yet?

No, you are getting more embarrassing to watch. But I understand. You can't offer any knowledgeable or accurate thought related to the topic so you choose to try flippancy in the hopes that no one will notice you are ignorant.

Indeed. Insults and "why don't you go live there" remarks are the equivalent of a small child that lost an argument and has no other recourse but to stick their tongue out and give a dirty look. That's when you realize that they had no intention of participating in adult debate and further correspondence would be a waste of time.

Well said, Tony.

But that is the goal of the denialist. To disrupt and distract away from the point of the article.

Which is why they should not be enabled.

Bye

All future comments on this thread will be deleted. I think that everyone has had their say.

Did you really expect any form common sense to dominate this dicussion Jim:))? Thanks for my daily does of humor, lol.

Yes, it's good for a laugh Yoshi, but it gets tiresome after awhile.

Ian: For about the 4th time, why do you refuse to answer my simple question? Until you do answer it, all of your further comments on my post will be deleted.

Don't worry, I heard that NOAA is building an ark. We will all be safe.

There is a sci-fi concept there. NOAA's ark. Hmm.

Thank you Joy. I was apprehensive.

The above comment from Ian Thorpe shows the level of arrogance and self-delusion that permeates all denialists. In short, denialists call non-science blogs "data" and dismiss actual data from actual scientists.

Jim,
As you have still not asked a question but simply repeated a fallacy without producing any evidence in support of it I'm still not sure what you want from me.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the "fallacy" Ian suggests Jim is repeating is not a fallacy at all. Jim (repeating the words of Ian, in fact) notes that 95% of climate scientists agree that the 100+ years of data unequivocally demonstrates that the planet is warming and the main cause is man's burning of fossil fuels. When Ian suggests this is a fallacy he is wrong. In fact, it is greater than 95% of all climate scientists; more like 98% that agree we are warming our planet.

But I'll give it a go:

Read this NYT report on The Norwegian Climate Sensitivity Study

Contrary to Ian's insinuation, the NYT article (a blog by Andrew Revkin, which reports on a study not yet published or peer-reviewed), actually supports the fact that the planet is warming and that we are the main cause. The study in question absolutely supports the consensus. So Ian's insinuation that it somehow doesn't is not only wrong it shows he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. He certainly didn't read the study. [If he says he did than we know he is lying.]

or this:

Global warming more complex than we thought

WUWT is a blog written by a non-scientist who admits he has been paid by the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization with a history of denying that tobacco causes cancer (when the tobacco companies were paying) and denying that fossil fuels are causing the warming of the planet (now that the fossil fuel companies are paying). Again, however, Ian insinuates that the paper being misrepresented in the denialist blog somehow disproves man-made climate change. That is false. If Ian had cared to go to the actual source he would have seen that the paper, in fact, supports the fact that we are warming our planet.

or this:

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

Again, Ian cites a non-science denialist blogger paid by a fossil fuel funded lobbying organization to deny the science and insinuates that somehow it invalidates 100+ years of science. Wrong again. Here we have someone taking a single comment out of context and fabricating a story line that is divorced from the actual meaning of the comment. Such dishonest "reinterpretation" is a common tactic of the denialist industry, which of course the amateur ideologues repeat over and over without even trying to understand it.

or this:

scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Ah, the ubiquitous Wiki article, created by the denialist industry to have something to cite. It contains all sorts of people with no climate research, people paid by the denialist industry, and various folks associated with denialist lobbying groups. Most are the same handful of people who sign every letter, every Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, and every blog that denies the science. None have provided any research that invalidates the fact that about 98% of all climate scientists agree the science is unequivocal. But hey, since Ian didn't bother to read the Wiki anyway, he wouldn't really have a clue, would he?

and this:

NYT - hundreds of scientists meet to challenge global warming consensus

Wow. A conspiracy blogger writing about how the Heartland Institute (see "denialist lobbyist organization" above) sponsored a fake marketing conference. Seriously. You can't get any more clueless than that. BTW, even one of the denialist speakers told the crowd that "the planet is warming, get over it."

and

the Union of Concerned Scientists provides this list of organisations sceptical about the science that the consensus is based on

Wow again. This is really getting to be embarrassing for Ian. The UCS list of organizations was provided to document the industry front groups posing as "organisations sceptical about the science." Get it? Industry front groups!! Here's a quick summary:

Global Climate Coalition: Started by Exxon as a group of fossil fuel companies to deny the science. When they got exposed as a front group they disbanded (only to reform under other names, see below).

George C. Marshall Institute: Started by Reagan appointees to sell "Star Wars," then turned to denying whatever science industry felt was inconvenient. Their dishonesty was documented in the book Merchants of Doubt.

OISM: Started by a "world is ending" nutjob who sells survivalist gear and home schooling materials. He wrote a fake paper intentionally designed to be deceitful and got anyone who would sign his petition say they were scientists (including veterinarians, doctors, sanitary engineers, etc.). Less than 0.1% of them even claimed to have any climatology expertise, and even that can't be verified since all they have is a list of names without any affiliations, expertise, or even where they say they got their degrees. Frankly, to cite such a joke is to demonstrate beyond all doubt any knowledge of the topic at all.

SEPP: Front group started by Fred Singer (see George C. Marshall, Heartland, and various other denialist front groups).

GES/Center for Study of CO2 and Climate Change: Set up by the fossil fuels industry to lie about the science. GES morphed into several front groups but the main people stay the same.

Seriously, anyone citing the UCS debunking of front groups and insinuating that this somehow supports the denial of the science is clearly so ignorant as to wonder whether they read anything. In fact, it suggests that the whole idea was to plaster all sorts of links and hope no one actually follows them. That kind of deceit is common among denialists.

and then there's that inconvenient business about the climate models on which projections were based being exposed as fundamentally flawed.

Your source is an obviously misinformed 5-year old blog by an anonymous blogger who goes by the name of "One Badass Bunny?" Seriously?

well OK, that's a blog. No serious scientist would agree would they? Depends whether you think NASA are serious or a bunch of young earth creationists and right wing nut jobs

But you don't cite NASA, do you? You cite a blog from an Arizona online newspaper that cites a paper by Roy Spencer. A paper that was so poorly supported that the editor actually resigned because of it. A paper that was so flawed in its analysis that it was quickly found to be borderline bogus by the scientific community. A paper that actually doesn't even say what the bloggers claim it says. That paper. BTW, Roy Spencer is on the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute (see denialist lobbyist above). I'm sure that has nothing to do with why his paper isn't supported by his own research. In fact, the data from UAH, where Spencer works, clearly says that those 98% of scientists are right and Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute are wrong.

BTW, Spencer isn't NASA. The denialist industry loves to claim NASA or NOAA or some other real scientific organization said something when it really was some blogger or denialist organization misrepresenting the data that said it.

and there's more from those guys who brought you the fake moon landing:

NASA Lowers estimate of Carbon Dioxide warming effect

Nope. Not NASA. You cite the same blogger in Arizona who got the other one wrong. This time it comes down to some other blogger reading a NASA press release but not the actual paper, doing some back of the envelope calculations that would make a fourth grader laugh, and completely botching up the whole thing. You really need to read this stuff before posting it. When you so clearly don't give a damn about the veracity of anything you pull off a blog it really is very clear to everyone.

And here's a page that explains why the models are wrong with a nice opener from Freeman Dyson

Okay, this is really getting embarrassing from you. It's rather obvious you just did a Google search (just like Ivar Giaever) and didn't bother to read anything you clipped to paste into your comment. The "nice opener from Freeman Dyson" is the false "skeptic argument" that the web site Skeptical Science then proceeds to debunk. Did you even read the debunking? You didn't, did you? No, you stopped after seeing the false argument put forth by Dyson, remembered hearing his name on a blog somewhere, and once again just pasted the link in without bothering to read or understand the material.

Why Climate Modelling Is Not Climate Science

You didn't read this one either, did you? Another old blog by another guy with zero climate expertise. Needless to say he gets it wrong. BTW, this guy has been debunked so many times it's clear you have no knowledge of this topic at all.

Now that had better be enough for you because when I searched for stuff that might help you understand that (a) you 95% of scientists is a fallacy and (b) why the so called consensus (of 77 out of several thousand climatologists) is based on seriously flawed data I got over a million results and I'm not going to list them all.

Your "I got over 1 million results" proves beyond any doubt that you have no knowledge of this topic and you merely did a Google search and copied the findings without reading. Good one. So much for you schooling actual climate scientists. Couldn't have shown your deceit any easier.

Let's recap.

1) Your claim that "95% of scientists" is a fallacy is wrong. Dead wrong. In fact, it is more like 98% and growing.

2) Not one of the links you provided offers any support for your contention. Not a stitch. None. Zilch. In fact, most clearly clearly document that those 98% of climate scientists are right.

3) Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

4) Your ignorance is clearly willful given that you didn't even bother to read the stuff that you Googled and cut-and-pasted. If you had you would have been too embarrassed to have pasted them.

5) These are the tactics of the denialist industry.

Well said, David. That's a fitting end to this thread. Everyone has had their say. No more comments.