Climate Consensus Con Game

[AUDub 11,148]

Wow. And here I thought Ben was one of the most rational posters in here.

I missed this earlier. Thank you. It means more to me than you realize.

[japantiger 4,051]

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

That certainly make ICHY's point that folks like you are latching on the political propaganda instead of the discussing the scientific case, which, in your case appears to be beyond your capabilities..."just kill the plants outright..problem solved.." :dunno:/>

It's a remarkable post to make at this point in the discussion. (Next time start with Al Gore so we don't have to read the rest. ;)/> )

How about next time I use single syllable words for you so you can detect sarcasm sooner...but I have to admit that killing all the plants makes as much sense as the rest of the solutions proposed by you guys...

The issue with all this is there is no observed warming that matches any of the predictions by these consensus climate change models. They are all wrong...every last one of them...yet, in spite of every model being wrong; the IPCC says we're more sure than ever that AGW is real. Really? If every prediction you make; every assumption set you put into these models fails to predict what is actually happening, how do you conclude that you are more sure than ever that your premise is correct...how is that science?

Having used modeling techniques from neural nets, class 5 polynomials and on down to simple regression in business modeling; and employed groups of PHD's to run them; I've never seen one PHD bring forward over 100 models that failed to predict their premise; and then the PHD try to tell me he was right anyway ...no one in their right mind would do that. I've made this point here many times; AGW is "modeled AGW; not observed AGW"...these "scientist" are all modeling our impending doom...just one problem...their models have been wrong 100% of the time...the WSJ had a good article on this,this week where they make the same point...your models can't all be wrong and AGW theory be right.

From the WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266:

"The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."

This has nothing to do with science. This is about taxes...this is about control...this is about taking money from one group and giving it to another.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Japan, that link doesn't work, have another?

[homersapien 11,373]

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

That certainly make ICHY's point that folks like you are latching on the political propaganda instead of the discussing the scientific case, which, in your case appears to be beyond your capabilities..."just kill the plants outright..problem solved.." :dunno:/>

It's a remarkable post to make at this point in the discussion. (Next time start with Al Gore so we don't have to read the rest. ;)/> )

How about next time I use single syllable words for you so you can detect sarcasm sooner...but I have to admit that killing all the plants makes as much sense as the rest of the solutions proposed by you guys...

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't referring to your facetious policy of "killing all the plants" (which is clearly sarcastic), I was referring to the logic of killing plants which are a net consumer of CO2. It seems to suggest that plants contribute to the problem.

[homersapien 11,373]

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

That certainly make ICHY's point that folks like you are latching on the political propaganda instead of the discussing the scientific case, which, in your case appears to be beyond your capabilities..."just kill the plants outright..problem solved.." :dunno:/>

It's a remarkable post to make at this point in the discussion. (Next time start with Al Gore so we don't have to read the rest. ;)/> )

......I've made this point here many times; AGW is "modeled AGW; not observed AGW"...

And you would be wrong each time. There is plenty of empirical evidence being observed.

In the interest of brevity, I'll just post the first example I found:

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

http://www.skeptical...ming-basic.html

[homersapien 11,373]

AF, You are very close to crossing over the threshold into outright lying.

Again, no one who thinks, would ever propose the idea that consensus is science. However, suggesting the consensus opinion is wrong merely for being the consensus, is as dumb or dumber than suggesting they are correct merely by being the consensus. This is all meaningless rhetoric. None of this "consensus" talk has anything to do with the science.

I think one has to truly understand their own argument before they are lying, which is the only thing you can say in his support. Personally, I think he is more ignorant than deceptive.

At least there is no shame in ignorance, until you start pushing it.

Here ya go homer. Find the rest yourself. It's funny you would even attempt to deny it.

You are right. I implied he is less than informed about the subject because he made an obviously stupid post regarding it. That was very rude of me.

I should have called him "smug little prick".

"As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.".

Homer you pretty much called yourself the same thing in this thread as quoted above. I was just paraphrasing your own words.

Again, I have never denied being arrogant. If you post something idiotic, I will say so.

But I will typically ridicule the post instead of calling the poster a name. Name calling simply indicates a lack of imagination.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I think it may be a toss up as to which con game is the most transparent and intentionally meant to harm. saban's attack on the HUNH or the AGW crusade.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

/tinfoil hat

[homersapien 11,373]

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

That certainly make ICHY's point that folks like you are latching on the political propaganda instead of the discussing the scientific case, which, in your case appears to be beyond your capabilities..."just kill the plants outright..problem solved.." :dunno:/>

It's a remarkable post to make at this point in the discussion. (Next time start with Al Gore so we don't have to read the rest. ;)/> )

This has nothing to do with science. This is about taxes...this is about control...this is about taking money from one group and giving it to another.

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

[AURaptor 1,122]

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

$

Govt funding of " studies ". Tell the govt what it wants to hear, get more goodies to further your "research ".

How are you not getting ANY of this ?

[homersapien 11,373]

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

$

Govt funding of " studies ". Tell the govt what it wants to hear, get more goodies to further your "research ".

How are you not getting ANY of this ?

What a crazy proposition.

Do you really think there has been enough money thrown into research grants to compromise over 97% of the scientists active in the field???

http://www.iop.org/n...page_60200.html

Here's some more reading on the subject:

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-ii/

This is exactly the sort of post I was referring to at the beginning of the thread when I said this topic invariably turns out to be embarrassing for our forum. True tin foil hat stuff.

And I suppose I am not "getting any of this" because I am not stupid enough to believe such a thing.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

$

Govt funding of " studies ". Tell the govt what it wants to hear, get more goodies to further your "research ".

How are you not getting ANY of this ?

Even if this were remotely true, which is pretty unlikely...

Who do you trust, then? Because if money is the issue, then wouldn't make sense to not pay attention to all of the scientists who are anti-AGW who are ALSO funded somehow- you know, by private corporations or people with a legitimate reason to try to obfuscate what's going on?

I'll put it another way. The Federal govt. has to disclose all spending that's not under a classified status. Do you really think that somehow they found enough money to buy off 97% of scientists worldwide, pay them in additional "silence money", then also pay off anyone who finds out the "truth", yet at the same time were able to hide what would be a massive amount of money from the eyes of all the crackpots who are looking to discredit the government?

I mean, talk about conspiracy theory.

[AURaptor 1,122]

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

$

Govt funding of " studies ". Tell the govt what it wants to hear, get more goodies to further your "research ".

How are you not getting ANY of this ?

Even if this were remotely true, which is pretty unlikely...

Who do you trust, then? Because if money is the issue, then wouldn't make sense to not pay attention to all of the scientists who are anti-AGW who are ALSO funded somehow- you know, by private corporations or people with a legitimate reason to try to obfuscate what's going on?

There's far more $ in the public sector for such stuff as there is for private. The classic Dr Raymond Stanz line, from Ghostbusters.

I'll put it another way. The Federal govt. has to disclose all spending that's not under a classified status. Do you really think that somehow they found enough money to buy off 97% of scientists worldwide, pay them in additional "silence money", then also pay off anyone who finds out the "truth", yet at the same time were able to hide what would be a massive amount of money from the eyes of all the crackpots who are looking to discredit the government?

Short answer, yes. Further, they don't HAVE to buy off ALL the world's scientists. And they certainly don't have to pay off others to keep quiet. The mere intimidation of " consensus " will do the rest. And, there ARE other govts, you know. And if the UN is pretty well made up of communists and socialists , all bent on sticking it to the West and the United States, then that paints a more clear picture. It's like Hugo Chavez said, in Copenhagen...

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it...Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world.

I mean, talk about conspiracy theory.

When is a conspiracy theory not one ? When they come right out in public and admit it, to gleeful applause.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

So how do you explain why all those scientists around the world suddenly became more interested in political control than studying the forces of nature?

Seems rather unlikely to me.

$

Govt funding of " studies ". Tell the govt what it wants to hear, get more goodies to further your "research ".

How are you not getting ANY of this ?

Even if this were remotely true, which is pretty unlikely...

Who do you trust, then? Because if money is the issue, then wouldn't make sense to not pay attention to all of the scientists who are anti-AGW who are ALSO funded somehow- you know, by private corporations or people with a legitimate reason to try to obfuscate what's going on?

There's far more $ in the public sector for such stuff as there is for private. The classic Dr Raymond Stanz line, from Ghostbusters.

I'll put it another way. The Federal govt. has to disclose all spending that's not under a classified status. Do you really think that somehow they found enough money to buy off 97% of scientists worldwide, pay them in additional "silence money", then also pay off anyone who finds out the "truth", yet at the same time were able to hide what would be a massive amount of money from the eyes of all the crackpots who are looking to discredit the government?

Short answer, yes. Further, they don't HAVE to buy off ALL the world's scientists. And they certainly don't have to pay off others to keep quiet. The mere intimidation of " consensus " will do the rest. And, there ARE other govts, you know. And if the UN is pretty well made up of communists and socialists , all bent on sticking it to the West and the United States, then that paints a more clear picture. It's like Hugo Chavez said, in Copenhagen...

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it...Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world.

I mean, talk about conspiracy theory.

When is a conspiracy theory not one ? When they come right out in public and admit it, to gleeful applause.

Dear Raptor, I was talking about the level of mental hoops you have to jump through to get to the conclusion. Not a matter of 1s and 0s, but a matter of magnitude.

Still, those are your hangups. If you've got data on them, I'm always open to look at new things. But, and I'm being honest and friendly, that stuff you say looks really out there.

It's pretty obvious that there's not going to be anything that would convince you otherwise. I am curious, though...is there anything that would convince you? What evidence would you look at with an open mind? And, given the preclusion of academic data as "bought", are you willing to admit that the other sides evidence is equally as "bought?"

[channonc 466]

Wow. And here I thought Ben was one of the most rational posters in here.

I missed this earlier. Thank you. It means more to me than you realize.

And I meant it. Really, I have enjoyed reading your posts in this forum. It's clear you make a point of trying to ensure your opinion is a well informed one. Thanks, it's refreshing in here.

[AURaptor 1,122]

.

It's pretty obvious that there's not going to be anything that would convince you otherwise. I am curious, though...is there anything that would convince you? What evidence would you look at with an open mind? And, given the preclusion of academic data as "bought", are you willing to admit that the other sides evidence is equally as "bought?"

Maybe 5000 years of more study ? Seriously, the climate has changed on this planet countless times before mankind was even out of the trees and wandering the savanna of Africa.

Not sure how you think my stuff is " out there" . In fact, it's pretty basic and down to earth. Grants are given to scientists, who have long worried about over population, pollution, man's impact on the environment, etc... and they make up studies claiming we're on the verge of an ice age, no wait... warming trend, naw... just call it CLIMATE CHANGE, yeah, that's the ticket. That convinces the public, who gets all scared and " forward thinking ", so we pay more for less and less, and who comes out on top ?

HINT: Hugo Chavez was applauding them in Copenhagen.

As if 70 + years of Soviet experimentation wasn't enough to convince everyone, THIS time, we're gonna get communism right!

[Auctoritas 2,828]

.

It's pretty obvious that there's not going to be anything that would convince you otherwise. I am curious, though...is there anything that would convince you? What evidence would you look at with an open mind? And, given the preclusion of academic data as "bought", are you willing to admit that the other sides evidence is equally as "bought?"

Maybe 5000 years of more study ? Seriously, the climate has changed on this planet countless times before mankind was even out of the trees and wandering the savanna of Africa.

Not sure how you think my stuff is " out there" . In fact, it's pretty basic and down to earth. Grants are given to scientists, who have long worried about over population, pollution, man's impact on the environment, etc... and they make up studies claiming we're on the verge of an ice age, no wait... warming trend, naw... just call it CLIMATE CHANGE, yeah, that's the ticket. That convinces the public, who gets all scared and " forward thinking ", so we pay more for less and less, and who comes out on top ?

HINT: Hugo Chavez was applauding them in Copenhagen.

As if 70 + years of Soviet experimentation wasn't enough to convince everyone, THIS time, we're gonna get communism right!

You get to "out there" when you start talking about them making stuff up. It's a serious leap of logic.

[AURaptor 1,122]

You get to "out there" when you start talking about them making stuff up. It's a serious leap of logic.

U of East Anglia ring a bell ? And all those claims of doom / gloom which haven't developed. Most of the hype about AGW is based on computer model projections, or garbage in, garbage out.

[AFTiger 282]

Misleading ‘97 Percent of Scientists’ Claim Resurfaces in NY Times

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/23/misleading-97-percent-scientists-claim-resurfaces-ny-times#ixzz2uFLbaW00

Repeat a statistic often enough and people will start to believe you. At least, that seems to be the philosophy of Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been repeating misleading figures to warn of manmade climate change for years.

The latest example of this effort from Mann was his Jan. 19 opinion piece in The New York Times. In it, Mann bemoaned the fact that there is any sort of debate going on over climate change “where none should exist.” Despite Mann’s claims about the “appearance of a debate” in the media on climate change, the news media are dismissive of manmade climate change skeptics, even going so far as to compare them to “flat earthers,” and are frequently alarmist in coverage of climate.

In the piece, Mann based his arguments a study which claimed that 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. While Mann didn’t specify which study he was citing (there have been at least three studies), all are misleading. But that hasn’t stopped people from claiming them as fact, as NASA has.

There are many scientists who disagree with so-called “consensus” on global warming. On Dec. 20, 2007, a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee revealed more than 400 prominent scientists questioning anthropogenic climate change.

The most recent study to come out with this 97 percent number was released in January 2014. That study by James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, was an expanded version of his Nov. 2012 study. His latest version claims that only one scientific study in the past year disagreed with anthropogenic climate change. It was touted by left-wing website Salon.com, and given the timing, appears to be the study Mann was referencing.

According to Powell, his first study searched for peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting climate change from January 1991 to November 2012 from a scientific database. From the 13,950 results, Powell removed all the results which he determined were unimportant, and then compared the remaining results. The second study looked at November 2012 through December 2013.

But Powell himself admitted that his methods were subjective. "[F]rom the get-go I do not claim that I have found every article on global warming. I probably have not found every article that rejects global warming. What I have found is the proportion of articles with topics ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ that reject AGW as I define reject," Powell said in the “methodology” section of his website.

Mark Morano of Climate Depot called Powell’s study a “misdirection.” According to Morano, the study “is implying that skeptics do not ‘accept man-made global warming’ without defining what that means.”

Powell’s study was mimicked by the Climate Change site Skeptical Science, which isn’t even remotely skeptical when it comes to global warming. This study was picked up by the liberal outlet “Slate,” which is owned by the Washington Post.

An older study with the same 97 percent result was released in June 2010 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) study that looked at 1,372 scientific studies – and then selected what the PNAS determined as the top 200. Only 2.5 percent of these “top studies” were “unconvinced by the evidence” about man-made climate change, according to PNAS. Steve Milloy at Junk Science is just one of the people who have criticized that study’s methodology, although some prominent media sites ran the number, including USA Today.

Morano argued that the number of research papers during this time period alone isn’t a compelling factor, even if the numbers had been accurate. According to Morano, since global warming is the “state sponsored science of the day,” many scientists will incorporate mention of it into otherwise unrelated studies, in order to qualify for grants.

“If a scientist studies butterflies, he may choose to do a model ‘if/then’ study on how warming temps 100 years from now may impact butterflies,” Morano said. “The butterfly scientist may never even look at the probability temps may rise a certain amount, only on how rising temps would theoretically impact butterflies.”

To support his argument, Mann referred to James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs. Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, boldly made climate change predictions in 1988 for how the world would look in 1997. They turned out to be very wrong. Meanwhile, Sachs, of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a crony of left-wing billionaire George Soros. Sachs has claimed that anyone who failed to adopt liberal energy policies has “blood on their hands.”

According to Mann, both Hansen and Sachs rightly “called for the immediate introduction of a price on carbon emissions, arguing that it is our moral obligation to not leave a degraded planet behind for our children and grandchildren.”

Mann has had data problems of his own. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the presentation of the data in Mann’s own hockey stick model of warming was inherently flawed. Because of their criticism, CEI, The National Review and National Review’s Mark Steyn are currently being sued by Michael Mann for defamation. The hockey stick graph was “highly criticized,” and portrayed data that contradicted the data released in both 1990 and 2013 by the International Panel on Climate Change, according to scientist Anthony Watts’ blog.

Yet, Mann has continued to stand by his climate model, even promoting it in his most recent Times opinion piece. “Our ‘hockey stick’ graph became a vivid centerpiece of the climate wars,” Mann said, “and to this day, it continues to win me the enmity of those who have conflated a problem of science and society with partisan politics.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/23/misleading-97-percent-scientists-claim-resurfaces-ny-times#ixzz2uFKoAdaP

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

[homersapien 11,373]

A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist.

http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/

Respected? LOL!

Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him:

http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer

http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html

Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck.

[autigeremt 6,615]

A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist.

http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/

Respected? LOL!

Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him:

http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer

http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html

Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck.

That can go both ways, homer.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The issue in my mind is the arrogance of using the "its settled science" mantra the climate change crowd intones. This is a good editorial..not a scientist, mind you, but certainly an excellent perspective, one which makes an awful lot of sense to me. Shoot the messenger if you must but it doesn't make climate change, aka, AGW, a settled science

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Way too many politicians, pundits, and outside interests involved in this debate. I just want to know what the top 50 scientists in the world have to say.

As of this moment, I believe there is a real problem. However, I think that political forces are guilty of exaggerating the problem on the left and minimizing or totally denying it on the right. The real problem revealed in this debate is, the value of the power and money at stake can obscure the truth. Politically, the power and money are bigger than the truth. Too many of us don't really care about the truth. We just want our side to be proven "correct".

[AURaptor 1,122]

Way too many politicians, pundits, and outside interests involved in this debate. I just want to know what the top 50 scientists in the world have to say.

As of this moment, I believe there is a real problem. However, I think that political forces are guilty of exaggerating the problem on the left and minimizing or totally denying it on the right. The real problem revealed in this debate is, the value of the power and money at stake can obscure the truth. Politically, the power and money are bigger than the truth. Too many of us don't really care about the truth. We just want our side to be proven "correct".

Look @ AlGore, who has the most to win from this whole charade. Who on the Right has the most to gain ?

No one ? Oh, you'll say 'big oil, big gas, big coal' , and capitalists ? Gee, the very folks who those on the Left ( Hugo Chavez and company ) have been waging war against for long before AGW was even an issue.

The much coincidence for my taste. Sorry.