The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (2 Viewers)

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important?

Click to expand...

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

'Topes said:

Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture) that even the political power of the industry is inadequate to restrain legislators, who manage to regulate carbon.

Click to expand...

'jon_mx said:

'Topes said:

Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture) that even the political power of the industry is inadequate to restrain legislators, who manage to regulate carbon.

Click to expand...

Yep, never had bad weather before global alarmism.

Click to expand...

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

'DiStefano said:

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

He was exonerated by the same people who exonerated Jerry Sandusky.

Click to expand...

'matuski said:

'DiStefano said:

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

He was exonerated by the same people who exonerated Jerry Sandusky.

Click to expand...

Who exonerated Sandusky? Odd post.

Click to expand...

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reaching Upper Atmosphere, Canadian Space Satellite Finds

Illustration of Canadian Space Agency's Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACES) satellite orbiting the Earth and measuring carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere.

CARL FRANZEN NOVEMBER 13, 2012, 10:32 AM 136

Not only is the Earth warming at the high-end of predicted models, but now human produced carbon dioxide emissions are accumulating in greater amounts in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, according to the results of a new study of data captured by a Canadian satellite.

That’s the key finding of a team at the University of Waterloo in Canada and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Space Science Division, relayed in a new paper published Sunday online in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The team analyzed eight-years worth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) data collected by the Canadian Space Agency’s Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE), a satellite launched in 2003 and bobs around the Earth in a 74 degree orbit, taking spectra measurements and images of the atmosphere.

What the scientists found from looking at the ACE’s data from 2004 through 2012 was troubling: Carbon dioxide levels in the upper atmosphere increased eight percent over the period, from 209 parts per million in 2004 to 225 parts per million in 2012.

Check out this graph from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL):

As the NRL described in a news release on the findings on Sunday:

“The scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon near 100 km [approximately 62 miles] altitude is increasing at a rate of 23.5 ± 6.3 parts per million (ppm) per decade, which is about 10 ppm/decade faster than predicted by upper atmospheric model simulations.”

At lower altitudes, carbon dioxide emissions make the Earth warmer by trapping sunlight.But at higher altitudes, the reverse is true: In the mesosphere (between 31 miles and 55 miles up) and the thermosphere (above 55 miles up), carbon dioxide’s density is thinner and a less effective at trapping infrared radiation. In fact, CO2 at these altitudes is something of a heat sink, allowing infrared radiation to escape back out into space.

But this isn’t a good thing. On the contrary, the thinning, cooling trend at this level due to increasing CO2 is likely to have detrimental effects on human spacefaring activity, something of a bitter irony given that a satellite was the reason we know about the increased CO2 levels in the first place. As the U.S. NRL explained:

“The enhanced cooling produced by the increasing CO2 should result in a more contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate. The contraction of the thermosphere will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the already unstable orbital debris environment, because it will slow the rate at which debris burn up in the atmosphere.”

In other words, rather than trapping heat, the increased CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere is likely to result in longer-lasting debris, and thus, a greater proportion of debris over time as humans continue to launch objects into space.Already, NASA’s Orbital Debris Program, which tracks the overall amount of space junk around the planet, reports that there are at least 500,000 objects orbiting the Earth between 1 and 10 centimeters in size, another 21,000 larger than 10 centimeters. Other scientists have previously warned that Earth is collectively approaching a “tipping point” when it comes to space junk, where one piece of space junk colliding into another could set off a chain reaction of cascading collisions that would make it prohibitively risky to launch anything else into space, a phenomena known as the “Kessler effect” or the “Kessler syndrome” after the scientist who first proposed it in 1978.

Space junk has become such a looming problem that the U.S. NRL has concocted a plan to reduce some of it by shooting clouds of dust into space to increase the drag on debris and bring them plummeting back to Earth, to burn up in the atmosphere. That idea remains just a proposal, for now.

Click to expand...

DiStefano said:

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

He was exonerated by the same people who exonerated Jerry Sandusky.

Click to expand...

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

joffer said:

jon_mx said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

1959: “the USS Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

Click to expand...

You sure showed him

Click to expand...

Psychopav said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

Is the North Pole usually a lake? The article didn't mention what's normal.

joffer said:

jon_mx said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

1959: “the USS Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

Click to expand...

You sure showed him

Click to expand...

The article did mention that the water is melted ice, not seawater coming through, so the jon_mx post doesn't appear to be relevant whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

DiStefano said:

'tommyGunZ said:

'DrJ said:

'Topes said:

"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," says Professor Michael E. Mann, of Penn State University, who was a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change.

"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted."

"The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn't see what we're seeing now for several decades," adds Mann.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't happen by the end of 2012, it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Why is 2012 important? We're talking Michael Mann here. He can just throw out the data and put the numbers he'd like in place, as he's demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

Mann has been exonerated multiple times. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-science rant.

Click to expand...

He was exonerated by the same people who exonerated Jerry Sandusky.

Click to expand...

Professor’s Lawsuit Against National Review Can Proceed

On Friday, the District of Columbia Superior Court ruled that climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann can proceed in his lawsuits against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Dr. Mann accuses the two conservative entities of defamation for comparing him to convicted rapist Jerry Sandusky last July.

The case has an interesting backstory. Three years ago, hackers leaked private emails between Mann and professors from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom. Climate change deniers allege that the communications reveal an international conspiracy to advertise man-made global warming. After lengthy investigations from the British authorities, the EPA, and Penn State University, the researchers were by all definitions exonerated — except by those with tin foil hats.

Conservative deniers cling to the notion that Michael Mann manipulated his findings that the world was getting warmer. A day after the Freeh report’s release, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a scathing editorial on an administrative cover-up at Penn State over Michael Mann. In addition to calling Penn State’s internal investigation into the scientist “hogwash,” CEI said Mann paralleled the former defensive coordinator because “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data.” The National Review later linked to the op-ed, and said that the author “has a point.”

Unsurprisingly, no one likes to have him/herself likened to a child predator. Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against the prominent magazine and the think tank because the two “maliciously accused (Mann) of academic fraud, the most fundamental defamation that can be levied against a scientist and a professor.” The six counts that Mann is suing for include libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Superior Court found that the defendants went beyond “brutally honest commentary” in their criticism of Mann and were not protected by the First Amendment.

In December, the National Review issued an appeal for donations to cover their expenses relating to the lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Psychopav said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

Is the North Pole usually a lake? The article didn't mention what's normal.

Click to expand...

“Every summer when the sun melts the surface the water has to go someplace, so it accumulates in these ponds,” said Jamie Morison, a polar scientist at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory and principal investigator since 2000 of the North Pole Environmental Observatory. “This doesn’t look particularly extreme.”

…Researchers estimate the melt pond in the picture was just over 2 feet deep and a few hundred feet wide, which is not unusual for an Arctic ice floe in late July.

Click to expand...

DaVinci said:

Psychopav said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

Is the North Pole usually a lake? The article didn't mention what's normal.

Click to expand...

It's normal.

“Every summer when the sun melts the surface the water has to go someplace, so it accumulates in these ponds,” said Jamie Morison, a polar scientist at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory and principal investigator since 2000 of the North Pole Environmental Observatory. “This doesn’t look particularly extreme.”

…Researchers estimate the melt pond in the picture was just over 2 feet deep and a few hundred feet wide, which is not unusual for an Arctic ice floe in late July.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DaVinci said:

Psychopav said:

badmojo1006 said:

The North Pole is now a lake

Click to expand...

Is the North Pole usually a lake? The article didn't mention what's normal.

Click to expand...

It's normal.

“Every summer when the sun melts the surface the water has to go someplace, so it accumulates in these ponds,” said Jamie Morison, a polar scientist at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory and principal investigator since 2000 of the North Pole Environmental Observatory. “This doesn’t look particularly extreme.”

…Researchers estimate the melt pond in the picture was just over 2 feet deep and a few hundred feet wide, which is not unusual for an Arctic ice floe in late July.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/scientists-declare-human-activities-are-changing-earths-climate-6C10853219

Click to expand...

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

Click to expand...

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Actually yes. I know 2 that are actually quite liberal. One is a Chemist, the other a medical doctor.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

the moops said:

Rayderr said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Actually yes. I know 2 that are actually quite liberal. One is a Chemist, the other a medical doctor.

Click to expand...

What exactly are they basing their denial off of?

Click to expand...

the moops said:

Rayderr said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Actually yes. I know 2 that are actually quite liberal. One is a Chemist, the other a medical doctor.

Click to expand...

What exactly are they basing their denial off of?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

Bonzai said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Relevant.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

You asinine position that any statement made by a pro-global warming expert has to be taken as gospel and any statement made by some 'denier' can easily be dismissed by simply associating their opinion with those on the fringe. Your debate tactics are the suck and an insult to anyone with any intelligence.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

The vast majority who are against global warming, are not in denial of anything which is backed up by solid science.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

You asinine position that any statement made by a pro-global warming expert has to be taken as gospel and any statement made by some 'denier' can easily be dismissed by simply associating their opinion with those on the fringe. Your debate tactics are the suck and an insult to anyone with any intelligence.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

Try googling Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

Try googling Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and former Greenpeace Canada president.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rayderr said:

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

joffer said:

The level of denial will now reach epic proportions. Whatever you do, don't listen to the scientists.

Click to expand...

Have you ever met a denier who wasn't already a pretty strong conservative?

Click to expand...

Sometimes your rabid positions you take are uterly ridiculous. Muller actually cringed at the title of this story because he knows skepticism is the key to good science and is still skeptical about many of the claims.

Click to expand...

What "rabid position?" Yes I believe in man made global warming. I'm also against most of the proposed progressive solutions to it, as I have stated time and again. (I refer you to my thread criticizing Australia for penalizing businesses).

But here I'm simply making an honest observation: I have never encountered anyone who seriously doubts this who isn't already a strong conservative. Not in the media, not personally, not in this website.

Click to expand...

Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and former Greenpeace Canada president.

Click to expand...

He's a conservative. At least he is nowadays. Pro-business, pro nuclear energy, anti-environmental regulations. FWIW, I agree with all of those things. But not with science denial.

Click to expand...

the moops said:

jon_mx said:

The vast majority who are against global warming, are not in denial of anything which is backed up by solid science.

Click to expand...

Bull ####. The vast majority of deniers know nothing about the science. They reject the position because of their politics.

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and former Greenpeace Canada president.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

OK, I see you guys want to push the argument by citing a couple of rare scientists. But I think my point's pretty solid: 99% of those who are skeptical of man-made global warming are political conservatives or libertarians.

Click to expand...

Sand said:

the moops said:

jon_mx said:

The vast majority who are against global warming, are not in denial of anything which is backed up by solid science.

Click to expand...

Bull ####. The vast majority of deniers know nothing about the science. They reject the position because of their politics.

Click to expand...

This is true, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

And, let's face it, Al Gore is a hypocritical, pompous ####### who has been on the GW train for all the loot (hundreds of millions) he has picked up along the way. He has turned this debate from a scientific, fact filled argument into a religious debate of good vs. evil. This has done incalculable harm to figuring out what is really going on here. He may also be right.

Rayderr said:

Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and former Greenpeace Canada president.

Click to expand...

Speaking of Greenpeace, you almost have to laugh at the fraud they have been committing by slipping in their propaganda in IPCC scientific journals and passing it off as peer reviewed literature. That organization needs to be disbanded.

Click to expand...