Ayup

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Uh huh

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Sure

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made-intermediate.htm

Sure

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made-intermediate.htm

Questions for the experts

The Climate Blame Reefer Madness Test:

This is a no brainer;

Just ask the climate blame expert why it is that "not one single IPCC warning of a climate crisis says it will actually happen". All scientific warnings are qualified with some sort of "maybe". Help my planet is on fire "maybe" and it's only been 27 years of research into CO2 effects? 27 years of maybe means it won't be. The ultimate crisis needs absolute proof, not maybes. Deny that!

Ask the expert if they believe a little tiny catastrophic climate crisis is even possible.

Ask the expert; "If this is really the crisis you say it “might” be, then why are the millions and millions of good and honest people in the global scientific community not acting like they have condemned their kids, not just ours to a CO2 crisis of climate". Like what’s worse, a comet hit? A crisis that isn't a crisis is a..........non crisis.

Ask the expert if they are willing to be criminally charged with uttering “CO2” death threats to billions of helpless children if they are proven wrong in say........ 3 more years? That would make thirty years of wrong predictions. If he says wait another hundred years then just whisper “Reefer Madness” to yourself.

Science did after all, did make environmentalism necessary in the first place thanks to their pesticides that they denied for decades as poisoning the planet.
These lab coat consultants and lazy copy and paste news editors and fear mongering politicians of climate blame have done to science what naughty priests did for religion.

Climate Change Journalism Is a War Crime

You lazy copy and paste news editor clowns have perpetuated 27 years of condemning billions of helpless children to your greenhouse gas ovens of your exaggerated climate crisis. Science never said it would happen, only might happen and it was only irresponsible journalism that said it "will" happen. So are you journalists and news editors willing to be criminally charged with uttering CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children if climate change is tested over a 30 year time span? Three decades should be good enough but you doomers have only 3 years left. If you doomers of climate blame want us to wait for a hundred years…………..holy Reefer Madness!!!!!

An apt quote:

[–]stupidnickname20th Century US | Environmental History 106 points 1 day ago
No, I agree with eternalkerri on this -- putting tendentious conspiracy theory on the same level as reasoned discourse is giving it a status it has not earned. Attempting to engage with conspiracy theorists on an equal plane ends in a hopeless mess, as the conspiracist is not pledged to the same rules of evidence, logic and argument. As in the case cited by OP, they cloak their argument in the form of logical argument, with citations and evidence, but it is a facade. When they are challenged on a single point of evidence, they will quickly drop that one and throw up another, equally spurious, because the original point had no special value to them in the first place; it was equally as bullshit as its replacement.
I summarize this by describing arguing with a conspiracist as wrestling with a pig: everyone gets dirty, but the pig likes it.
I have extensive -- nay, endless -- experience with this in the climate change discussion. Debunking claims is incredibly frustrating, with a journalistic and political context which does not seem to care about basic post-Enlightenment ideals of reason, evidence, science and logic.

Media

Well put, Hakuin. I think the main thing is to challenge the pundit class whenever they start spouting the denialist talking points. Unfortunately there are still mainstream media, politicians, and journalists who believe pretty much what the kooks on comment threads believe (or say they believe). The general reader is often going to take whatever comfort they can find and latch on to arguments that the crisis is overblown -- that it will all work out in the end. It's all "natural".

The Canadian population may not be too bad in terms of scientific knowledge, but it's terrifying that 60% of Republicans in the U.S. and 40% of Democrats believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. I think our prime minister (judging from the church he belongs to) is in that category too. Oh well, I guess we just have to put one foot in front of the other and never stop.

Hak....Don't forget the

Hak....Don't forget the planned ideological, wealth creating and political reasons for denials. Especially in the jammed up human zoos of the cities.

Going back to the nazi times as an example, nobody denied the KZ camps and the holocaust for about 10 years after the war, when the evidence was still fresh in people's minds, but then it became a large industry.

The same here, because accepting facts would hinder "investment" and "development".

Ed Deak.

Deniers are better planet lovers

We deniers love the planet, you fear mongers of climate blame belief hate humanity and just want to drag us all down with you in your miserable lives. You doomers jump at the headline of "all of science agrees" without even knowing what it means. They only agree it is "real", not a real crisis. Prove me wrong and find me one single IPCC warning that isn't qualified with "maybe" and "could be" and.....etc.
Science has never said a crisis WILL happen, only might happen. Prove me wrong!

Deniers should look in the mirror!

I am a scientist,and have always found the "precautionary principle" very useful in studying challenges to our way of life. Humans have arrived at this state of affairs on the planet because the "precautionary principle" is routinely forgotten by those who see profit taking as their entire raison d'etre. When it comes to loving something, PROFIT should not be the motivator. Long term sustainability is what is needed. I think the climate change deniers are very afraid to look in the mirror, any mirror, like the eyes of their children for example. You feel guilt, and we should all feel guilt since we are all guilty, but don't let one bad decision lead to another; let us get on the road to fixing this mess or none of our children will be having children.

actions are louder than words

You don't have to froth at the mouth or say a single word to be an effective climate denialist. You just have to exert your "god-given" cultural hegemony and insane privilege to drive around in a 200 horsepower jalopy all the time and go on those jetplane junkets to disappearing beaches every winter, and let your ignorant actions speak for themselves.

Anybody want to play in the traffic?

Mr. Meme says that scientists always hedge their bets. Yes, that's how scientists talk. In fact, that's how science works, and the best reason for trusting it. They're tell you that if you send your children out to play in traffic, there's only a percentage chance they'll get run over. They won't guarantee it because they can't. By Meme's logic, we should send our children out to play in traffic because the scientists refuse to be absolutely certain that they'll be hurt. I call that dumb.

Hey, NickS

Thanks for the ice extent link that shows less arctic ice coverage in 2012 than any other year, the latest available.

Of course there is going to be expanding ice in Antarctica because warmer air BUT STILL FREEZING AIR produces more snow but this does not mean that Antarctica is not warming.

Another thing that probably confuses you. As the planet warms European winters will get colder. This is because the greater amount of fresh water in the North Atlantic, from Greenland melting, causes the Gulf Stream to sink and therefore warm Europe less. But you knew that right?

Ed brings up Nazi's again and Talon is a "scientist"

who wants everyone to feel guilty for breathing.

Polar bears pay no mind to ice levels that seem so important to Southerners and just keep on increasing.

"Besieged by bears
In villages across the Arctic, Inuit are reporting an invasion. Polar bears, once rare, are now strolling the streets, peeking in windows, killing dogs – even stalking kids. No place has been more menaced than Arviat."
http://uphere.ca/node/850

In 2012, the Nunavut government conducted a long-awaited census of western Hudson Bay polar bears and came up with 1,013 animals, or about twice as many as the number projected by environment Canada. Dr. Mitch Taylor, a lifelong polar bear scientist who, at times, has been ostracized by his peers for insisting that polar bear populations are generally stable, took some satisfaction from the results. “The Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”

The Deniers are commenting in

The Deniers are commenting in full force on this particular series, I see. For some enlightenment on their subversive tactics (e.g. demonstrated by mememine69 and NickS above), see this comprehensive and enlightening article: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/10/399724/ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign/
As Deniers are funded by fossil fuel interests to spread doubt on comment boards such as this, I'd like to see a campaign targeting the disclosure of their anonymous identities, and public shaming of their malignant activities. Personally, I see what they do as criminal considering the damage they're doing; but the law hasn't yet evolved to deal with their ilk.

The author

The author did not study oceanography for sure. The largest store of carbon in the oceans is as CACO3.

I am constantly amazed by the instistence that those who

denounce the Junk Science and outright lies that Alarmists present as gospel, are the ones making money. Australian journalist Jo Nova did a good job of digging up the facts.

"So yes, let’s do talk about The Money. As Climate Money pointed out: all Greenpeace could find from Exxon was a mere $23 million for skeptics over a decade, while the cash cow that is catastrophic climate change roped in $2,000 million a year every year during the same period for the scientists who called other scientists “deniers”."
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/08/climate-money-big-government-outspends-big-oil/

Aside from the obvious den of iniquity called Desmogblog, I wonder where else the Alarmist character assassins are located. My guess is academia and government, where Big Climate rains blessings on those who carry the torch for shafting the public and scaring kids.

:)

you ain't foolin' no one.

oh, and cityzen;

"full force" doesn't mean much when sock-puppet accounts are used. I'm pretty sure that there are no more than three professional denialists working this site under a dozen names.

There aren't that many "denialists" here

Most of the comments have always been from Alarmist
supporters.
Since I've noticed a pattern of projection displayed by Alarmist. Who gets more money is one such projection. It has been proven it is the Alarmist camp.
Dare I think that Hak has just revealed the source of Alarmist support here when he says:

"I'm pretty sure that there are no more than three professional denialists working this site under a dozen names."

Substitute Alarmist for "denialist" and I think he just gave the game away.

but

at least ONE authentic crank :)

Here is a source you can't deny :)

I get the COUNTRY LIFE IN BC. Most farmers, ranchers and, may I add, orchardists have far more common sense regarding climate than any city slicker who pretends to know it all. Here is a quote from the last issue that puts it all into words you can understand:
"Scientists have recently come up with an explanation for why environmentalists are polarized along partisan lines. A University of California Berkeley study concluded it's all in how we frame those issues when talking to each other Conservative thinkers react more positively to messages built around a need to protect the purity and sanctity of the Earth, whereas liberal ([deniers] thinkers responded better to arguments built around a moral obligation to care. ...Reaching out to conservatives [deniers] in a respectful and persuasive way is critical, because large numbers of [deniers] will need to support significant environmental reforms if we are going to deal effectively with climate change."

It concludes with: " If we are to make peace with the land, we must first make peace with each other."

A Real No Brainer

Here's a probability experiment, a no brainer really, that mememine69 should like to try. Begin by jumping off the first floor balcony of an apartment. There's a low probability of you getting killed unless you dive head first, that'd be a real no brainer eh. Next go up one flight of stairs and jump off the second story balcony. The probability of you dying goes way up but it's no where near a certainly. Next go up the stairs again this time to the 3rd floor and once again jump off the balcony. Again the probability of you dying from the fall increases but it's still not certain. If you do live go up to the 4th floor and jump off that balcony, it's still not certain you'll die. But one thing is certain, if you keep going higher and keep jumping off I won't have to read anymore of your ignorant comments soon. Please report back and let me know how you made out.

There are a lot fewer morons

than it appears. The money from scumbag greedheads like the Kochs amplifies the noise.

We don't need to reach out to some imaginary significant demographc. What we need is to cut the head off the snake.

Just a few facts by way of Prof. Robert Carter

"Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

Deniers are better planet lovers?

Yeah, but necrophilia does not count.

Sign up, start your own

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/gm-heartland/

Know the enemy:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

That's it?

Your answer to everything is "The Koch Brothers"?

You guys are beyond pathetic.

how can they do it?

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/27/koch_2/

Nice Sharing About Crash

Nice Sharing About Crash Course. The Shared Statistics Are Good And Inspiring.
http://www.bit-cart.com/ | http://www.bit-cart.com/shopping-cart-hosted.html

Professor Robert Carter?

You mean the guy who studies molluscs and who gets a monthly cheque from the Heartland Institute?

Whos concerned

I know some folks are concerned I have an aquaintance who works for the coast guard and he was saying that they regularily take climate scientists on trips to study ocean temperature, rate of methane that is melting etc.. and a whole lot of other 'sciency' tests.
Yes the ocean's plankton sequester carbon, but the ocean's hold heat and conduct it.
I asked him if the severity of storms he has experienced over a 20 year have become worse or the same. He said no doubt about it the storms are getting worse. Ive heard similar accounts from pilots as well.
Even if the deniers of climate change cannot accept the 'greenhouse effect', theres no doubt that deforestation and farming practices are having an effect on the climate. if not the climate, the environment, call it man-made climate change. You only have to look back to the 'dust bowl' of the 30's and the havoc poor farming practices created.