Global Warming Denialism at the New York Times

gratuitous insult

I guess you bags of meat don't get that I find the Global Warming propaganda that I've had to endure for 20 years offensive. Andrew asauber

Andrew: The climate can’t be fooled. However, a progwashed bag of meat can easily be. Andrew Funny thinking exactly the same thing except for the gratuitous insult velikovskys

wd400: No good deed goes unpunished! PaV

Seems the hoax even fooled the climate

The climate can't be fooled. However, a progwashed bag of meat can easily be. Andrew asauber

taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history.

. I find this very offensive. Us evolutionary biologists having been hoaxing so hard for so long, and even here we are being rated behind the climate folks! wd400

pav:Taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history. Seems the hoax even fooled the climate into record setting warmth. velikovskys

wd400:

It should be obvious that the results they reported were not at odds with the modern understanding of climate science.

No, they're not "at odds" with the modern understanding of climate science; just ignored.

If you’re un-cited physicist really does think the greenhouse effect is at odds with conservation of energy he’s wrong.

Here's the essay: Watts Up With That. I think his argument is rather straightforward and compelling. Hansen used what is called Bode's formula, which applies to electronic systems. White shows how electronic systems and climate systems are not the same, and cannot be compared. Two years ago, IIRC, there was a simple climate model based on a very different electronic feedback rule, one that found applications elsewhere outside of electronics. It was able to match recorded temperatures over the last twenty years. Taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history. PaV

Of course, this is before those same scientists began cooking the books in the service of expanding government power.

Is there something in the article that's at odds with what current believers in global warming claim? (It's certainly not in the quoted portion. That the US lagged behind most of the rest of the world in experiencing significant warming is well established. The US didn't begin warming until the late 90s. If that is global warming denialism, then I guess everyone is a global warming denialist.) goodusername

pav, I think you probably wasted more time talking about something you literally hadn't read, but ok. It should be obvious that the results they reported were not at odds with the modern understanding of climate science. If you're un-cited physicist really does think the greenhouse effect is at odds with conservation of energy he's wrong. Asauber, If you read the thread you'll it was Andre that lead it away from climate data and science into Bob's mental states. bb, Climate is certainly complex, but that doesn't prevent single variables having a large effect on a particular change or trend in climate. If you doubt this, ask yourself why summer are reliably warmer than winters... wd400

wd400: I've read the article. I was hoping not to have to waste my time reading it; but, now, I've had to. And, yes, it was a big waste of time, thank you. Is your trifling point the difference between a 'study' and what scientists think? And that the 'study' can stand and scientists can continue to think whatever they like? Well, yes. That's what unfortunately happens too often these days when 'ideological' purity is required. Facts simply become inconvenient, and are then rationalized away. The Devil is a liar. God is truth. When the world abandons God, then it abandons the truth. This is what we see more and more. As to AGW, I read a new critique by a scientist who was addressing the 'forcing' of temperature that CO2 supposedly causes. He points out that this premise, used by James Hansen, who is mentioned in the above 1989 article, violates the principle of Conservation of Energy. Uh oh. That's not good. But why let something like that deflect us from spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a fanciful crisis? All those corporations receiving this government handout will gladly help out the elected officials that helped pave the way for this great largesse they've received. Meanwhile, let the peasants "eat cake." PaV

you might think of refugees coming out of Syria

In a thread about climate data, its not the first thing that comes to mind. Thinking about climate data would seem more appropriate. Andrew asauber

I feel suffering is a bad thing. that would still be true of anthropogenic climate change wasn’t happening

Why bring up a personal impulse that's admittedly irrelevant to the subject being discussed? Please, materialists, if you are going to invoke science as some kind of authority, please stick to discussing science. Andrew asauber

Bob: To bring it back to the OP, it’s clear to me that Barry’s argument is fallacious – he conflates the US with the world, The scientists in the article make the same point. velikovskys

bb:I don’t have the means to collect the data myself and don’t have the faith to trust the irrational, and cherry-picked, claims of a modern, so far gulag-free, Lysenkoism. Whether it’s a coming ice age, or warming, there is no credibility on your side. The link you provided used that data , you seem able to use the data when it suits your purposes. What is a hiatus without data? It’s a single-factor theory about a multi-factor world, as Dr. Sowell so concisely put. It doesn’t work Actually it is not a single factor,the climate is complex. . It’s too simplistic, like all political manipulation schemes. We’ll all die under a global, socialist dictator before the unsubstantiated and trumped up fears of AGW materialize. Sorry, if all data is invalid, you have no way to objectively judge whether you are the one being manipulated. But I agree that most of us will be dead before the full affect of Climate Change would occur. velikovskys

That’s something we experience everyday, v. From recipes to space shuttles to synthetic elements. It all begins with an immaterial thought. In that way we are in God’s image. Perhaps,then it seems chemical ingestion should have no effect on thought production Not able to create ex-nihilo, but able to create something new, immaterially conceived and brought into being with existing matter that would never self-organize into what was imagined. True , but the problem for me still remains, the immaterial is able to interact with the material , how? velikovskys

asauber - you might think of refugees coming out of Syria (for example) as hypothetical. But I think they actually exist.

The point being you seem to think your personal impulses are an important component of your belief in imaginary Global Warming.

Huh? this doesn't follow from my argument (from 44 on), which was about why I feel suffering is a bad thing. that would still be true of anthropogenic climate change wasn't happening. Of course, "the point" is trivially true that my personal impulses are an important component of my belief in things - that's true for anyone, surely? How could it be otherwise? Of course, that's not the only component - for climate change (for example) there is also a lot of judgment over whether the evidence and arguments makes sense. To bring it back to the OP, it's clear to me that Barry's argument is fallacious - he conflates the US with the world, and then makes a political accusation for which I dont think there is any credible evidence. Bob O'H

"Do it yourself ,get a graph of global temps and a ruler. Best fit to the data. " I don't have the means to collect the data myself and don't have the faith to trust the irrational, and cherry-picked, claims of a modern, so far gulag-free, Lysenkoism. Whether it's a coming ice age, or warming, there is no credibility on your side. It's a single-factor theory about a multi-factor world, as Dr. Sowell so concisely put. It doesn't work. It's too simplistic, like all political manipulation schemes. We'll all die under a global, socialist dictator before the unsubstantiated and trumped up fears of AGW materialize. I know I'll never convince you. You're too religious, and your religion is incoherent. Good-bye v. I'm done with this thread. bb

"But immaterial processes are able to create material?" That's something we experience everyday, v. From recipes to space shuttles to synthetic elements. It all begins with an immaterial thought. In that way we are in God's image. Not able to create ex-nihilo, but able to create something new, immaterially conceived and brought into being with existing matter that would never self-organize into what was imagined. bb

I’m afraid I don’t understand your question. I was making a general point.

Bob, I guess you just aren't very smart. So you have occasional sympathy for hypothetical people suffering from something you can't articulate. The point being you seem to think your personal impulses are an important component of your belief in imaginary Global Warming. It ain't science, though. Duh. Andrew asauber

bb:link I'll look at it velikovskys

bb, : That’s bunk v. For every bit of propaganda you want to put up to support this claim, I can find research to counter it. Do it yourself ,get a graph of global temps and a ruler. Best fit to the data. So how does one know which side is right? It isn’t the side supported by the power-grabbing, socialist politicians that seek to shut down debate. It isn’t the one dishonestly invoking a mythical “consensus” as if it meant something. Maybe less jargon is a start, all politicians no matter which side are power-grabbing . If you think otherwise, you believe what your side says no matter what. Mythical, any evidence? Consensus, if the reason people belief something is because it is the consensus ,then I agree with you that provisional belief is less supported, if at all. However, if a large majority of specialized group has been led to the same conclusion thru various methodologies , then that provisional belief is supported by the expertise of that group, not because it is the consensus. In that case it does matter it is the consensus. velikovskys

You don’t have to be an expert to know that material processes are incapable of creating anything non material… Empathy is not material Bob just like logic, reason and morality… Material processes can only work with material Bob….. But immaterial processes are able to create material? velikovskys

Bob O'H You don't have to be an expert to know that material processes are incapable of creating anything non material... Empathy is not material Bob just like logic, reason and morality... Material processes can only work with material Bob..... Andre

The hiatus never existed , it required a cherry picked start date. Pick the year before or the year after as a start date and the hiatus disappears.

That's bunk v. For every bit of propaganda you want to put up to support this claim, I can find research to counter it. So how does one know which side is right? It isn't the side supported by the power-grabbing, socialist politicians that seek to shut down debate. It isn't the one dishonestly invoking a mythical "consensus" as if it meant something.

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

This one has a pay wall: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201603&spMailingID=50767823&spUserID=MTI0NzgyNDMwMjA2S0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0 This one doesn't: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/24/new-paper-shows-global-warming-hiatus-real-after-all/ bb

Andre - I'm not aware of any reason why it shouldn't have evolved, but the hows and whys are not something I would know enough to comment on. It's not my area of expertise. Sorry. Bob O'H

Bob O'H So where does empathy come from Bob? Did it evolve? Andre

asauber @65 - I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I was making a general point. I hope it's obvious that people suffer from all sorts of things (I think Pindi is suffering from reading this thread). Andre @ 67 - I try to have empathy, sometimes I fail of course (I'm only human, after all). I'm not sure why you ask what meaning empathy has for me. Its part of who I am as a person. Pidi @ 68 - it will not surprise you to learn that I'm sympathetic. Bob O'H

Hi asauber and Andre, I don't know about Bob, but I am starting to suffer from severe boredom at your inane questions. Pindi

Bob O'H So do you have empathy with other or are you trying to have empathy? I am confused? What meaning does empathy have then for you? And if you don't like them suffering what exactly is it that you would do to aleviate their supposed suffering? Andre

bb :No it hasn’t. It has been slowed back to statistical insignificance since 1998. Big deal. Climate does that. Nothing world ending about it. Especially when you remember the plethora of failed predictions. I mean, we were just missing the “coming anthropogenic ice age” of the ’70’s and it had the same cause and identical promises of doom and gloom. The hiatus never existed , it required a cherry picked start date. Pick the year before or the year after as a start date and the hiatus disappears. The sixteen warmest years from 1880- 2015 includes every year from 2001- 2015. Global monthly temperatures have set all time highs for the last 15 consecutive months thru July 2016. It is true some scientists predicted cooling based on the a high levels of particles being emitted into the atmosphere, but since the 70's we have decreased the levels by pollution controls. But those prediction were not universal, many scientists believed that warming was happening, somewhat masked by the particles. Those scientist's predictions have not failed. velikovskys

They seem to, at least.

OK Bob, Since you say that your hypothetical people seem to be suffering, what is it they are suffering from, in the context of this topic? Andrew asauber

asauber - read what I wrote in 60, please. Bob O'H

I don’t like the idea of people suffering.

But Bob, How do you know they are actually suffering? The idea of people suffering is different from actual suffering, if it exists. Again with the imagination and stuff. Andrew asauber

Andre - I'm not sure if the experience is different for everyone, though. I'm not sure why meaning has to be an issue - even in a meaningless universe, suffering isn't pleasant for the person who is suffering. As someone who tries to have empathy for other people, I don't like the idea of people suffering. Bob O'H

Bob O'H If the experience is different for everyone can we really call it suffering? Since the world has no meaning or reason it is obvious that suffering just like everything else also has no meaning. Andre

According to which standard are you defining suffering? If the uinverse just is can we really say there is even such a thing as suffering?

I suffer, when I'm in pain or feeling very stressed. Yes, it's subjective. But I don't see any reason why other people and animals don't also suffer, in similar ways. They seem to, at least. Bob O'H

Bob You told me how you feel. But feelings are not reasons. Do you know what the problem is with materialism Bob? Chemical reactions that can think about chemical reactions. Andre

I don’t like people and animals suffering.

...at the hands of an Angry Average That Causes Bad Things. Bob, you are the most seemingly compassionate mindless piece of meat I imagine I know. Andrew asauber

Andre - I answered your question in 44. Maybe I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, but then perhaps you could read what I wrote, think about it, and then ask some questions so we can try to understand each others' points of view. Bob O'H

Bob O'H According to which standard are you defining suffering? If the uinverse just is can we really say there is even such a thing as suffering? What do you think Bob? Andre

I am certain Bob will deny it what I find really funny is him using reason to deny that reason exist.... Andre

WD400 So your take on the Polar Vortex? In 74 it was global cooling in 2013 it was global warming... Which is it? Andre

I'm guessing you have not read the article? wd400

wd400: According to the present-day "consensus," yes, they were wrong. So which set of scientists should we believe in? Wouldn't actual data help? Of course. But, they alter the raw data; so we end up with a discussion of are these adjustments valid or not. This is no more than a science which 'twists in the wind.' And which is fed by government funding. PaV

"What possible reasons do you have to feel this way? " Maybe Bob actually has a soul, though he might deny it. bb

Bob O'H Why do you feel this way Bob? What possible reasons do you have to feel this way? You have not answered the question I asked Bob. Andre

A persuasive argument

v, You asked. I answered. Andrew asauber

Andrew: Trolls like you? A persuasive argument velikovskys

what imagines it?

v, Trolls like you? Andrew asauber

Andre - I can only tell you how I feel. Sorry, but I don't feel I'm in a position to speak for other people with regards to morals and ethics. But I have tried to outline my reasons, and if you want to criticise me for having empathy and not liking suffering, then go ahead - that's your prerogative. Bob O'H

Bob O'H You care because you feel that way? Why do you feel that way Bob? Why ought people treat you well Bob? Because you feel that way Bob? How did chemicals attain empathy and social inclinations Bob? I would love to hear a more intellectual response Bob because so far you've only responded on how you feel..... This is not a reason Bob....... Andre

Andre - I, at least, care because I have empathy. I don't like people and animals suffering. I think we should try to treat people (and animals) with respect. Why do I think this way? I guess because humans are social animals - it's the way our societies work. If you want a more intellectual response, then look to the Golden Rule. I don't think I'm special, so I don't see why I should be treated differently to other people. Thus, if I want to be treated well, it makes sense that other people should be treated well too. Bob O'H

But why should we even stop at their hypocritical nature? Why not simply ask them? Why do you even care? What possible reason can you give for your concern of the planet? It is just an insignificant spec in the universe with no reason whatsoever for its existence..... Why do you even care? What possible justification can you give for your reasons to be concerned? How does a blob of chemicals with no free will of their own overcome their chemical composition disadvantage, break free from the laws of chemistry and nature to champion the impossible ideals of saving a planet that never had them in mind in the first place? I'm all ears. Andre

The Climate is a very complex system, there are many factors at play, the biggest one is of course the SUN and since the 11th century we have been faithfully recording temperatures and there is one very important issue that the hysteria mongers keep missing, data shows that the heating and cooling cycles on earth are directly correlated with the Sun's solar activity cycle. That does not mean humans must be reckless it just means that humans gives themselves way too much credit for what they are actually capable of. It is amazing how the materialist preaches the insignificance of humanity but then in the same breath warn of our absolute power to destroy planets. I call such people hypocrites, what do you call them? WD400, RVB8, Pindi all cut from the same hypocritical cloth. Andre

RVB8

What is it about the solution to AGW,(that is alternative energies, electric cars etc) that IDers find so offensive?

And RVB8 makes a flat out false statement. Who is opposed to alternative energy? Citation please..... Andre

The problem The 1974 Polar Vortex, global cooling blamed. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html The 2013 Polar Vortex, global warming blamed http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/ What is it going to be? Andre

"What is it about the solution to AGW,(that is alternative energies, electric cars etc) that IDers find so offensive?" That's a straw-man. No one here is protesting alternative sources of energy. That isn't the debate and I love my solar panels. bb

Sorry to be late, I don't usually post on the pieces concerning Global Warming as they are invariably shards of paper read out of context, or the inane babblings of those not really qualified to comment. However, and I have asked this before, without a decent answer; What is it about the solution to AGW,(that is alternative energies, electric cars etc) that IDers find so offensive? Anything that takes decision making power away from Russia and Saudi Arabia must surely be good? I agree it's a long way off, but surely we have to start? Why wouldn't you want to live in a green city? You prefer smog? In short (and although AGW is happening) moving away from oil is good for everyone except people I generally have little time for. rvb8

PaV, the scientists weren't wrong in 1989. Did you read the article? Barry, I don't think I've every argued in bad faith or lied in these pages. Now, can you point out my "histrionic" comments? Or do you perhaps care to admit that you misunderstood the purpose of my single-sentence comment? wd400

wd400, one point of yours I will concede. Your lie was a small one, hardly worth noticing. But showing materialists to be inveterate liars, even in small things, amuses me, perhaps more than it should. And you, friend, have provided much grist for that mill over the years. Barry Arrington

Here's a question: If the scientists were wrong in 1989, that is, according to the scientists in 2016, then how will we know--and when will we know--that the scientists in 2016 are correct? Do we have to wait another 26 years, and billions of dollars? Would you like to venture an answer wd400? PaV

Global warming IS "man-made"; it's made in factories around the world. That is, "warming" didn't begin until humans stopped recording temperatures and electronic digital thermometers began being used in their place. That's when "corrections" began to be introduced to temperature readings. Eliminate the "corrections," and there has been no warming for over a century. Yes: it truly is "man-made." wd400: Despite your protestations that your single intent was only to point out that simple reflection refuted what Peter stated--and then later linking this to a more general criticism of UD; i.e., that so much of what is commented upon can be simply dismissed--your basic premise still remains this: "Scientists know best." IOW, you protect the Ivory Tower--which is no more than an "argument from authority"--and from its lofty heights you "dismiss" the amateurs. Isn't there a word for this? PaV

wd, My face is in my hands and I'm shaking my head. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. It's what we see in your comments. bb

The whole point of wd400’s comment in 6 was to demonstrate that Peter was wrong to suggest that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue.

But, as I have said, it wasn't. Also, I'd be amused to know which of my posts here you think "histrionic". wd400

"It didn’t, the trend which wasn’t statistical significant in 1987 has continued for the last 28 years." No it hasn't. It has been slowed back to statistical insignificance since 1998. Big deal. Climate does that. Nothing world ending about it. Especially when you remember the plethora of failed predictions. I mean, we were just missing the "coming anthropogenic ice age" of the '70's and it had the same cause and identical promises of doom and gloom. The fact that the hypothesis pointing to human CO2 emissions as "the cause" is so simplistic, despite the incredible complexity of the system, and the revival of Lysenkoism, indicates this "crisis" is purely political....claims of consensus (the business of politics) included. Amazing that Materialists can deny the ubiquity of evidence pointing to God that is obvious to all throughout history. Yet buy this bridge on the mere scraps of legitimacy offered by the cons selling it. bb

Yes, wd400, people can read it all, but they probably won't take the time to go up and down the thread to do so. And your comment counts on that. So I will lay it out for them. In the OP I quoted the New York Times from 1989:

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

In comment 5 Peter wrote:

That was before Al Gore discovered how useful a political issue it would be. The Dems are seen to be more environmentally aware. What better way to frighten the uninformed masses into voting for the Democratic party.

In comment 6 wd400 wrote:

Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore’s trick to win votes in the US…

In comment 7 bb responded to wd400:

Thanks for the argument from authority.

In comment 10 wd400 lied about making an argument from authority

I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.

Finally, in comment 11 I called wd400 out on his lie, after which he went berserk, doubling down on his claim that he made no argument, much less one from authority. Well, let’s see: First, let us define terms. My dictionary defines “argument” as “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.” In comment 5 Peter made the point that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue to frighten the uninformed masses into voting Democratic. The whole point of wd400’s comment in 6 was to demonstrate that Peter was wrong to suggest that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue. And why was Peter wrong? Because Gore’s view was supported by “almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world.” In short, wd400’s comment in 6 was a statement, reason, or fact against Peter’s point – i.e., he made a brief argument. Let’s define another term. The phrase “argument from authority” means to argue that a proposition is true not by appealing to evidence but by appealing to someone in authority, such as an expert. It cannot be seriously doubted that wd400 made an argument from authority. Instead of appealing to any evidence whatsoever, he appealed to the opinion of the majority of “scientists in the field.” So, putting it together, wd400 clearly made an argument, and that argument was based on an appeal to authority. Therefore, when he said “I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority,” he was plainly lying. wd400, your unseemly histrionics in response to being caught out in your lie only compound your culpability. Really, stop it. The only seemly response at this point is to take responsibility for your actions and apologize to your readers. Barry Arrington

You know Barry, I'm pretty sure folks can read this thread and decide who should be embarrassed. I'm feeling pretty OK. I'm still curious why you see the need to behave like this so frequently, but I guess we won't get an answer. wd400

Stop it wd. You are embarrassing yourself. Barry Arrington

It wasn't a lie at all. Seriously, what compells you act like such a drama queen over this? wd400

wd400 @ 12

Talking about feeling shame, don’t you feel some when you climb into high dudgeon about trivial comments

Nice turnabout maneuver. I am the one who should feel shame for catching you out in your lie, because in your view as lies go it was not a big one. That would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Barry Arrington

Andrew: And to further the absurdity of it all, it’s an abstraction that Causes Bad Things To Happen. Unless abstractions can interact with matter, they have no causation Sounds like materialists are jealous they don’t have an Angry God to invoke. What a joke. How do you figure? velikovskys

then Global Warming doesn’t exist. It’s an abstraction represented by a cartoon squiggly line. Completely imaginary. what imagines it? velikovskys

And to further the absurdity of it all, it's an abstraction that Causes Bad Things To Happen. Sounds like materialists are jealous they don't have an Angry God to invoke. What a joke. Andrew asauber

if the material world is all there is

...then Global Warming doesn't exist. It's an abstraction represented by a cartoon squiggly line. Completely imaginary. Andrew asauber

old army:From a purely materialist perspective, I don’t get the concern. Man gonna do what man gotta do. Right? Interesting theory, it seems to me if the material world is all there is materialists would be more concerned about the quality of life ,not less. velikovskys

From a purely materialist perspective, I don't get the concern. Man gonna do what man gotta do. Right? OldArmy94

Andrew: Are you suggesting that Global Warming Theory has changed since 1989 such that it no longer includes unexpected changes? Global cooling has not been an unexpected change so far, just the opposite. velikovskys

asauber - even with unexpected changes, a trend can still be up. Now some of the trends are more expected (e.g. this year's el nino), because climate scientists have spend the last quarter of a decade learning even more about their objects of study. Bob O'H

velikovskys, Are you suggesting that Global Warming Theory has changed since 1989 such that it no longer includes unexpected changes? Andrew asauber

Andrew:So, the warming trend could result in causing a cooling trend. Maybe. It didn't, the trend which wasn't statistical significant in 1987 has continued for the last 28 years. velikovskys

From the article and says all you need to know about Global Warming Theory:

But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns.

So, the warming trend could result in causing a cooling trend. Maybe. Science of the highest quality. Andrew asauber

The same article also says

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations. Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record. Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

In what sense is that global warming denialism? (and yes, in the following paragraphs they do report a contrarian view, i.e. that the theory is right but the empirical trends weren't towards warming) Bob O'H

BB, I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.

You only have yourself to blame when no one believes you. Barry's right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw-nCdwxAXY bb

I merely wanted to point out that Peter couldn't have thought through his comment. If you want to call that an argument then fine, but I wasn't saying global warming is true because almost all scientists that work on climate believe it be so. Talking about feeling shame, don't you feel some when you climb into high dudgeon about trivial comments like this? It's all very theatrical, I guess. But not very helpful. wd400

wd400

I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.

I understand that liars are going to lie. But I don't understand why you would tell such an obvious one. Your implied argument in comment 6 was that Peter was wrong about Gore in comment 5. And the argument rested on nothing but your implication that "almost every scientist" agreed with Gore. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the two comments. Have you no shame? Barry Arrington

Asauber, Sorry if I failed to live up to the high quality of the posts in this thread... BB, I didn't make an argument for anything, much less one from authority. I just find is interesting how often the comments here can't survive even a few seconds of contemplation. wd400

Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world

I think its almost amazing that people like wd40 just go around the internet regurgitating spam like they have nothing better to do. Andrew asauber

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ - July 31, 2015 Excerpt: Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming. The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science. Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement. The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters. Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ “Deniers” in their midst – All is not well in Nobel Prize Land - Anthony Watts - July 7, 2015 Excerpt: Today, one of the nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.,,, Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’ Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.,,, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”,,, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.” “That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.,,, “How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.,,, “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained. Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted. “Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”,,, “Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.,,, “If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued. “You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added. “Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/

bornagain77

"Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore’s trick to win votes in the US…" Consensus is the business of politics, not science. With all those scientists, you would think at least one model forecasting catastrophe would bear out by now. Take a look at The big list of failed climate predictions. Thanks for the argument from authority.

Global warming, due to greenhouse gasses, is the latest in a long series of one-factor theories about a multi-factor world. Such theories have often enjoyed great popularity, despite how often they have turned out to be wrong.

-Thomas Sowell, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434836/donald-trump-campaign-finance-reform-global-warming-fate-america bb

Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore's trick to win votes in the US... wd400

That was before Al Gore discovered how useful a political issue it would be. The Dems are seen to be more environmentally aware. What better way to frighten the uninformed masses into voting for the Democratic party. Peter

No Bob O'H. Global warming, when it does happen, is caused by a multitude of factors that include solar activity and gases in the atmosphere like water and CO2. Carbon as a single cause is simplistic and cherry-picked. It's the perfect storm to stir up irrational, socialist mobs, like those routinely seen at climate summits. The CLAIM that current average temperatures are higher than any trend in human history, and that it's catastrophic for the planet is supported by book cooking. That is needed because of the lack of actual convincing evidence. bb

Wait, so global warming is caused by book cooking? I'm glad I have mine raw! Bob O'H

This just goes to show that progressives are at heart, liars. Not even science, the thing they hold out as their ideal, can be withheld from being used as a political slut. Andrew asauber

The thing about global warming or cooling is that it could always be way warmer or cooler somewhere else and how do we know, especially if the books are cooked? The a-crock-a-lypse could always be happening somewhere else. Also, what do the stats even mean? Where I live, the daytime temperature can be 30 degrees Celsius but the nighttime temperatures plunge to, say 16 degrees or even as low as 12 degrees Celsius in August. The a-crock-alypse just wouldn;t have time to get started. Good news: We don't really need to run an air conditioner. Just leave the windows open at night and close them in the morning. Bad news: if we are marketing a local a-crock-a-lypse, we need to explain why it is unwise to put all the warm blankets in mothballs in the summer time. ;) Climate A-Crock-Alypse To Cost Millennials Trillions? News