Skeptics are a "tiny right wing fring group"

This statement has been posted many times by individuals here who do not care to accept the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

31,487 dissenters:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

NASA scientists revolt against Hanson’s dictatorship:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...sts-rebel-against-global-warming-hysteria.php

700 scientists from overseas against AGW:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

And finally. 1000 peer reviewed papers supporting the skeptic view:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Give it up guys, the fraud is revealed......

 

The belief system runs so deep, and the issue has been so distracted into near religious political dogma routines, I'm not even sure what the fraud is anymore. Obviously, the world has warmed, otherwise Canada wouldn't exist and New York City would still be buried under ice. Those two things not being true, it is obvious that SOMETHING has happened to melt that ice, and raise the sea level hundreds of feet. Then man came along in his modern form, and not near as much has changed since then.

Someone remind me, what is the fuss all about?

 

Your logic here fails. "A small minority of scientists agree with me" is not a refutation of "denialism is primarily a right-wing political movement." And that's not even counting up how few scientists agree with you.

1. Your "31,487" includes mostly people with no climate science knowledge at all. I could have signed that petition, having more qualifications than most of the signers.
2. Your "NASA scientists revolt" was a letter from a few random retired NASA employees.
3. Your "700 scientists from overseas" was a Marc Morano rant that didn't even list any scientists.
4. Your "1000 peer reviewed papers" listed mostly papers that basically agreed with global warming theory.

(Seriously, parroting tired right-wing fringe extremist propaganda to prove you're not a right-wing fringe extremist is probably not a good tactic.)

Now, let's talk about the evidence supporting the premise "Most denialists are right-wing fringe extremists."

1. Most denialists here and across the internet act like right-wing fringe extremists. They rant endlessly about how much they hate those dirty socialists and environmentalists. When most of those embracing a movement act like right-wing fringe extremists, I conclude they _are_ right-wing fringe extremists. In contrast, the mainstream side stays non-political.

2. The GOP used to accept global warming. The Bush administration did. Then the GOP leadership flipped, and the base quickly followed. When you change your position based solely on political orders, that shows the movement is political.

3. The denialist movement gets almost all of its funding from right-wing fringe extremist sources. Follow the money. (There is far, far more money in being a denialist than being a reputable scientist. Any scientist of note could instantly double their salary by abandoning ethics and becoming a denialist and going on the wingnut welfare dole. The fact that they don't speaks highly of them.)

 

Heat and Drought
•Dust Bowl years - 1934-1936. Many daily/all-time maximum temperature records still stand. Highest temperature ever recorded in Wisconsin - 114 degrees on July 13, 1936 at the Wisconsin Dells. The following is a list of major cities that set all time records for highest temperature. ◦ Oshkosh - 107 degrees - July 13, 1936
◦ Appleton - 107 degrees - July 14, 1936
◦ Madison - 107 degrees - July 14, 1936
◦ Milwaukee - 105 degrees July 24, 1934
◦ Green Bay - 104 degrees July 13, 1936

Look at these record setting temps for just Wisconsin. We are far from doing any actual global warming of a catastrophic kind if that is even possible.

Do you suppose all this heat in 1936 had something to do with all the fossil fuel use by the millions of SUVs being driven? Weather and it's many elements is cyclical. relax. It's more likely we're going into another mini- ice age. and no. you can't control it.

 

Let's look at the 1930's vs the last decade from a *global* perspective...

First, let's look at the average global temperature anomalies over the globe for the 1930's (click on the image to see a full-sized version if the current image is too small):


Now, let's look at the average temperature anomalies over the globe for the past decade (again, click on the image to see a full-sized version if the current image is too small):


Note that during the 1930's, even though the midsection of the USA was quite hot, it was an isolated "hot spot". Compare that with the global-scale warmth seen during the past decade. And yes, Virginia, both plots use the same min/max color scale.

So "MisLed", you certainly picked a great screen name. You've been seriously "MisLed". Please don't repeat that crime by misleading others with your misinformation.

 

Misled, your logic makes no sense.

"It was just as hot in one local spot in 1936"

is not a refutation of

"global average temps are now at record highs and climbing."

Saying "it's a natural cycle!" is an evasion, not an argument. Cycles have causes. We know the causes of past cycles, and none of them are at play now. If you can't name the specific cause of the current heating, you're just mindlessly handwaving and evading any real discussion.

 

Ditto for me. I am *more* than qualified to sign that petition.

Now for a few (well actually, more than a few) choice words about the 31000+ signatories.

That petition has been around since the late 1990's (something like 15 years). There are something like 10 *million* people in the USA who meet the qualifications to sign that petition. 31000+/10 million comes out to be just a tad over 0.3 percent.

So in a decade and a half, the petition sponsors have managed to get slightly more than *0.3 percent* of the pool of qualified individuals to sign their petition. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the petition sponsors' views.

Some additional comments:

Those who have read my previous posts here know that I actually "rolled up my sleeves" and computed my own "hand rolled" global temperature results from publicly available raw temperature data. Those results, computed via a very straightforward gridding/averaging procedure, matched the official NASA/GHCN results *very* closely. Once I got my basic program up and running, I was able to demonstrate the following:

1) Raw and "homogenized" temperature data produce very similar global-average temperature results. So the "skeptic" claims that the calculated global warming trend was a result of data-homogenization turned out to be very easy to disprove.

2) The UHI effect is insignificant. Processing only rural stations produces results nearly identical to what you get when you process all temperature stations.

3) The skeptics' "dropped stations" claim (Google it up) is completely bogus. The results that I got when I processed data only from stations currently reporting data were nearly identical to the results I got when I processed data from all the stations.

4) The global temperature network is so robust and reliable that you can throw out more than 98 percent of the temperature stations and *still* get results that confirm the official NASA/GHCN results. Search this message board for my earlier posts to see the details.

5) The algorithm that produced all of the above results is so straightforward that I could teach it to advanced placement high-school students. The algorithm involved nothing more than normalization and averaging -- mathematical procedures that are among the easiest to code up.

6) An experienced programmer/analyst could accomplish all of the above in just a few days, if he/she really put his/her mind to it.

Now, the 64-cent question is -- why hasn't even a single one of the 31,000+ petition signatories even attempted to do any of the above? Skeptics have been attacking the global-temperature results produced by NASA and others for *years* without even bothering to put in the few *days'* worth of effort needed to prove their claims. That alone should tell you all you need to know about global-warming "skeptics".

Think about it: Not a single skeptic has come out and said, "I decided to test claims that I had been making about climate-scientists' global-average temperature results by conducting my own independent analysis of the temperature data, and I found that my claims were incorrect. I hereby retract them and acknowledge that the climate scientists were correct all along." Why is that the case?

 

Just following up with a "quickie" comment -- "MisLed" really should take some time to read this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...perature-record-really-incredibly-robust.html

 

Take the following off the table:

a) Increased taxes
b) Increased regulations
c) Redistribution of wealth
d) Any involvement by the UN

Put the following on the table:
Z) The Chinese must sacrifice first.
Y) Government-oaid scientists are pushed aside

Then we have some scope for discussion.

 

Folks, note what is *not* on the table: Anything remotely resembling science.

 

Misled. I'm seriously Misled. Wow. That's the first time i've EVER heard that insult before.
Dude. The ones you trust have lied to you and you're still carrying their water. There's no global warming that is controllable and this is NORMAL. meaning. It will right itself as the Exxon Valdiz spill did, as the Gulf spill did. The earth is miraculous. YOU have no control. You never have, you never will. I am not giving you money for such a stupid reason.

 

Your 4 points above are not accurate, and your 3 points are simply rants with nothing to verify.....

I could have almost typed your reply, because I hear the same thing at conferences and on other forums. When you confront liberals who say "all scientists agree", the next step is they say...."well those are not the RIGHT kind of scientists"....then when we start comparing one-on-one with alarmists credentials be see that they are comparable, you guys resort to the last tactic which is basically to say, well they are "denialists" on the GOP payroll....and you walk away......

Transparent, predictable (as you have done it already), and so obvious when someone is trying to protect their religion....instead of allowing scientific debate.

 

And yet is is you who addresses mamooth's points by calling them "rants".
And yet it you who does not understand the significance of having researched climate and published peer-reviewed papers.
And yet it is you who is being predictable with the "religion" accusation.
And yet it you who, like many religious extremists, presents anecdotes as scientific evidence.
And yet it you who is comparing the mistakes (which were corrected) by the climatologists to the lies (which were never corrected) of the Oregon Petition and sites like wattsup.
And yet it is you who uses strawman arguments, such as "it has happened before".

As caerbannog, states, do the work. Show us where the calculations are wrong. Show why all five datasets do not show significant warming. Show us how CO2 does not absorb and emit IR. You claim to be an engineer. Explain to us why a sudden change in any stable system is not catastrophic and instead "produce many beneficial effects".

 

And yet is is you who addresses mamooth's points by calling them "rants".

They are......

And yet it you who does not understand the significance of having researched climate and published peer-reviewed papers.

I just posted a link to over 1000 of them that say AGW fears are BS. (BTW I AM a peer reviewer for an engineering journal)

And yet it is you who is being predictable with the "religion" accusation.

It is obviously a region to many (like you) when you give up the scientific method

And yet it you who, like many religious extremists, presents anecdotes as scientific evidence.

Gonna have to be more specific Manny'o

And yet it you who is comparing the mistakes (which were corrected) by the climatologists to the lies (which were never corrected) of the Oregon Petition and sites like wattsup.
And yet it is you who uses strawman arguments, such as "it has happened before".

So you say that the FACT that climate change has happened before without man is "strawman" to the AGW debate?.......LOL, you're almost as much fun as BB

Explain to us why a sudden change in any stable system is not catastrophic and instead "produce many beneficial effects"

Don't recall mentioning "many beneficial results", but OK:



Vostok Ice Core Data

You beloved hockey stick is somewhere at the end of that blue line, you will need a magnifying glass to find it. BTW this data also showed CO2 LAGGED temperature (gasp!) not led....

See yet why I don't take your religion seriously??

 

Give the "peer-reviewed" thing a rest.

Warmer stuff is only reviewed by other Warmers because the arrogant Warmers only view other Warmers as their peers.

Einstein made his name by convincing the skeptics. The Warmers apparently cannot do so.

 

The skeptics sponsored a meta review last year. It supported the "warmer" science. Anyone still refusing to accept reality is a denier cultist, not a skeptic.

 

For one example, providing pictures of a submarine that had surfaced through a hole in the ice at the North Pole with a caption that states "March" when it was August.

So you link to the Oregon Petition but have never read it.?

The lag fairy tale has been explained numerous times. If you still do not understand it, I would suggest you stop referring to it.It makes you look uninformed.

 

That has no bearing at all on the fact that AGW is happening.

It is just an excuse to change the subject.

 

Majority of Americans say it isn't happening. What are you gonna do. Get Obama to do another one of his famous Executive orders and MAKE the rest of us bow down to this?

 

Then show why. If you can't, everyone will correctly assume you're running. Again. Squealing like a sissy and turning tail is pretty much what defines you here.

I'm sorry. I'll try be more PC in the future. All opinions are obviously of equal value, even your idiot conspiracy theories, and I should have been more senstive towards your feelings. Can we sing kumbaya now?

You know, if your entire political philosophy wasn't such a reeking crock of immoral dogsheet, you wouldn't have to constantly lie and run.

 

Once more it has no bearing on the fact that AGW is happening.

Even though I question a claim that a majority of Americans claim AGW is not happening at one time in history a majority of americans did not believe evolution happens.

And as far as "what am I going to do?"

I am trying to prepare for the changes....because they are coming.

 

and I do not. And I AM NOT alone. So you go right ahead and do what you deem necessary to prepare yourself. Will you not be content unless you force me to do the same?
why is it that africa and other continents are NOT going thru this hot spell that we are going thru right now. It is NOT worldwide. So, that leads me to believe that this is cyclical...and normal. maybe not pleasant but certainly not permanent.

 

The Saudis are bracing for near record heat during Ramadan.

AGW is a global average temperature and the Earth has been warming since 1880.
Crop yeild forecast for the Midwest is down. Crop forecast for Russia is down.

And why in the world do you think that reducing carbon emmissions are an attack on your personal freedom?

If you run an air conditioner for longer periods at a higher setting your electricity bills are going to go up regardless... because you will use more electricity.

The price of oil is going to go up simply because the oil companies can charge more for it.
The oil companies know that if gas goes to 10.00 a gallon people will pay...because they have no other choice.

The cost in fires, drought, hurricanes, floods,crop damage, and other things will be much more expensive than reducing carbon emissions.

And even if we stop all carbon emissions today the earth will continue to warm for a while because of the CO2 already in the system.

I even posted a thread called "what can we do?' and all I have gotten so far is nonsense responses.

Even the right-wing is coming to the conclusion that the earth is getting warmer...a step in the right direction.

 

YOU cannot stop these things. And you will not get people to willingly go along with the incomplete science that you present. OF COURSE the earth is warmer...it's summer. IT Is cyclical. It is not permanent. And you are not going to get people to give up their money(freedom) to go along with this idiocy.

 

money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round.