A Forbes article on global cooling

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

Enough Illahie

The author obviously has limited knowledge of the world's oceans.

Illahie, that assertion is as baseless as all your others.

In any case, the author is reporting on the release of a massive study, which can be downloaded for anyone interested, even denialists. Follow the link he provided. Now, the way it works in science is that you look at the data and if there are flaws in methodology you point them out. That is what Berkeley physicist,Richard Muller (a real scientist and a skeptic in the best sense of the word), did last year. After examining all of the data, he reversed his opinion and agreed that the anthropogenic global warming scenario was correct, and that the science has been done well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

So you accuse Chris Wood of "limited knowledge" and then you provide a link to that renowned scientist, (oh wait, he's an ultra-right fellow of the fraudulent think tank "The Heartland Institute", who on several occasions took money from Jack Abramoff to promote that convicted felon's clients in op-ed pieces) Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes.

This is a perfect demonstration of what the scientists, and honourable writers like Chris Wood, are up against. It is blatant fraud, pure and simple, perpetrated by con artists, with mixed nut-jobs thrown in for good measure. Incredibly, this blatant dishonesty is what is holding up action on implementing change. The best that can be said for some of the denialists is that they have convinced themselves that the fraud is actually the reality, so technically, they may not by lying. It's a sad commentary that someone of Ferrara's ilk even has employment, but then even Jack Abramoff found a job once he was released from the slammer.

Anyway, thanks, Illahie, for unintentionally revealing the level of duplicity we are dealing with in this fight.

Sources

Great peer reviewed article in Sports Illustrated on the discovery of living dinosaurs known as Nicksus Illahiesaurus or something like that.

Illahie is a criminal

... and his rantings are no different that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which is a crime.
These kind of nut jobs should be removed from sane society for the safety of all.

The duplicity is quite intentional

Thanks for pointing it out. Perhaps that is why the label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change, 10 years ago now, about the time that the world entered the present cooling cycle.

It was quite intentional.

Cold is hot, up is down. As in religion, everything points to the direction of taking money from developed countries to send to the undeveloped countries, which is what global warming, I mean Climate Change is all about.

Nothing wrong with that in itself. The real problem is that there are people in the middle who want to siphon off much of the proceeds for themselves. They actually do not care about the misery in the developing countries.

Why don't you publish a book, Ill?

We'd all love to see that.

Good to know

The duplicity is quite intentional

Nice to have that confirmed. It's necessary for us to know what kind of people we are dealing with.

Booker, scientists don't argue

Politicians argue, scientists study and publish the results of their studies.

illahie

Illahie is either a charity or a trailer park, judging from his comments he lives in a trailer park.

Nature doesn't care

Booker, scientists don't argue

I see you have managed to never meet a scientist, or attend a science class or a conference, or read anything by a scientist, or listen to a science podcast, or read a science blog.

Argument is absolutely fundamental to the scientific endeavor. They, as a group, are renowned for their argumentativeness. What they do not do (or are they are challenged if they do it) is present arguments based on libertarianism, or socialism, or Christianity, or capitalism, etc. They study nature, and nature doesn't give a shit about our philosophy.

Never let facts get in the way of a good psyop

Especially since pushing it is so lucrative. Actually, it is our "parents climate"., because it was cold between 1940 and 1979 when it started warming again. The 1990s were not as warm as the 1920-40 period. There was no 6-9 year drought making "Dust Bowl" conditions in the 1990s, was there? The Climateers who post here are probably on some payroll or other and the prime reason for The Tyee existence is to push the Global Warming, er excuse me, Climate Change Meme.
"Arctic ice area has increased by 10.5 million km^2 since mid-September 2012.

"The press corpse continues to report this event as record ice loss. Leading experts say that the Arctic will be ice-free in a few months, or sooner."

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/arctic-ice-growth-blows-away-all-records/

Keep up the good work Truthtellers, the Climate Bullies are loosing.

skip the junk science, dont feed the trolls

For those who think the oceans are just too huge for Burning Man to alter them so quickly, go to this site:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/gallery/global-water-volume.html

lucrative

Especially since pushing it is so lucrative

Damn. I'm not getting my piece of the action. What about the rest of you?

Extreme Violent Storms On Decline In U.S.

Rapid CO2 Growth Has Minimal Climate Impact

"Anti-science, partisan scientists have done severe damage to the reputations and public trust of most major American science institutions and universities - an example of progressive Democrat scientists pushing an anti-science agenda is the claim that atmospheric CO2 growth would cause accelerated, dangerous global temperature warming, extreme climate change and violent storm disasters...it hasn't happened"
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/extreme-violent-storms-decline-us-co2-growth-has-minimal-impact-temperatures-climate-change.html

A clue for the clueless...notice the Climateers here never argue with facts, just snide remarks about those who do present the facts that expose the Climate Con Job.

Climateers here never argue with facts

Then please post some scientific data, not propaganda from a known Koch-funded denialist blogger. Perhaps, since Chris Wood just provided you with a major scientific report, you might think of addressing that directly instead of link-bombing crap at us.

"progressive Democrat scientists"

Again, it's all about ideology with you people. Show us the frigging math or go away.

How do ya spell Hysteria

Holy mother of dispropotion. The Tyee has fanned this to a feverish pitch. Arguments no longer reflect reason. Illahie calls settle down, no fire in the theatre, is accused of hollering FIRE! Ranger Kim wants blood, Booker says media sources are unreliable and scientists dont agree with one another. You make some good points Booker.

The world is flat

People like illahie have been around as long as man has existed. They were the ones who swore the world was flat. They knew women had to burned at the stake as witches. They blindly followed Hitler and killed millions of Jews. Currently they know Obama is a Muslim and of course there's no such thing as climate change. They stand and proudly proclaim their ignorance for all the world to see. Scientific evidence that's contrary to their ignorant beliefs is scorned, ridiculed and dismissed. They are today's extremists that support Harper without ever questioning the consequences of his actions.

Never a fact, just a smear

The effing Koch Bros. sponsored the "research" by fake skeptic Richard Muller.
http://junkscience.com/2012/07/29/sigh-richard-muller-the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic/

Everything is phony and the Koch Bros are just playing their parts in the road show.

The Climate Agenda is the reason for the Smart Meters. How come you are all so scared of a few more ppm of a beneficial trace gas, and don't say boo about being microwaved 24/7?

What a bunch of phonies.

Oh Oh

Stand back! Conductor's got a certificate and he aint afraid to use it!

Conductor also delivers Straw Man

The skeptics have always said that climactic change is normal, natural, and has ALWAYS occurred.

Speaking of Nazi's, the EcoNazi's would have us all live in the urban concentration camps Agenda 21 has planned for us.

"What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations in 1990 to implement Agenda 21 locally across the world. It is a membership organization for cities; 7,807 worldwide as of 2012.

Headquartered in Bonn, Germany, it is a lobbying and policy group that is intended to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life. It designs and sells systems that monitor, report, and control water and energy usage. This information is then shared.

By concentrating power in cities this group circumvents requirements for ratification of international treaties and gives the illusion of local control. ICLEI is structured as a parallel government but has no transparency because it is a private non-profit.

In fact the cities then ally in regional conglomerates which break jurisdictional boundaries and will destroy local control. These regional boards are unelected and not answerable to the citizenry.

Ultimately this facilitates global governance by invalidating individual cities, counties, states, and nations with agreements and interwoven systems to which they are bound by contract: public private partnerships."
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/iclei-when-they-say-local-they-mean-it.html

Vancouver and Nanaimo are ICLEI members.

For those seeking publicity

ANY publicity will do.

Moderation

Moderation costs money. I agree lice should be combed out, who wants to pay?

The US government has spent BILLIONs supporting Climateers

Which ones are going to bite the hand that feeds?

US Government *only* spent $70 billion on climate since 2008.

"There’s no evidence skeptics were well funded, just like there is no evidence of that positive feedback in the models.

"But sometime, somewhere (it’s coming) the world will wake up and realize that climate cash was not just a moneystream but an ocean. Climate funding is so large, there is not just a flow but currents, waves and tidal ebbs. Not to mention the sharks.

"Seventy billion dollars and in just four, that’s “4″, years. What could possibly go wrong?"

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/us-government-only-spent-70-billion-on-climate-since-2008/

Oh, disemvowelling

Works too.

@NickS

"There’s no evidence skeptics were well funded, just like there is no evidence of that positive feedback in the models."

Actually, there is. Most of it is small enough so far, but the current state of the arctic summer ice is one that is obvious to anyone. Add a little logic and a high school level of physics.

$70B over 4 years is nothing. Current estimates being bandied about, are that the "cost" will rise by $500B every year we delay action. Even with my distrust of modern "accounting practices", that's a big number.

There is no denying that kind of money draws in the sharks. But the existence of sharks doesn't discount the reality of the science.

This isn't an individual "crackpot" you are trying to discount. It is a worldwide scientific community. Each one of whom is willing to have their data reproduced, analyzed, and confirmed by others. If you don't believe the results of their research, you are free to do your own analysis. Prove them wrong. But your "proof" needs to stand up to the same rigorous analysis at theirs does.

Don't throw the game

Gentlemen please; this public discussion of censorship and threat is distastefull. Keep it private, keep it secret, otherwise you will encourage the conspiracy nuts.

Crucible, you are delusional!

Michael Mann dropped his libel suit against Tim Ball because he was unwilling, to quote you: "have their data reproduced, analyzed, and confirmed by others."
"In the B.C. Supreme Court Ball’s attorney, Michael Scherr, has a clear run to perfectly demonstrate how climate “scientists” have been (and still are) withholding data that would help to resolve the climate controversy; we may say unscientific behavior, because hiding data makes it difficult or impossible for independent scientists/statisticians to replicate the claimed results.

As we know, Mann’s “dirty laundry” is the withheld r-squared correlation coefficient numbers for the “hockey stick” graph which McIntyre, Wegman, Cuccinelli and others have been desperate to see publicly examined but which Mann (and his university employers) have always kept under wraps. It’s not just the key evidence, but also Mann’s days that are numbered. This is because, as plaintiff in the action, Mann picked the worst possible jurisdiction to do legal battle over his “hockey stick” graph""
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/new-slaapstick-courtroom-capers-as-michael-mann-falls-foul-again/

Show me the equivalent funding to skeptics that comes anywhere near the BILLIONs spent by the US Gov alone? $70 Billion since 2008 and over $79 Billion in the 10 years before that.

"The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?"
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

The warmists seem to be restless

Why I do not know.

Even Ground Zero of the global warming circus the UK Met Office and the IPCC, now admit that global warming has stopped, and the earth is beginning to cool, although they try to spin it a bit.

I don't think that there is an Oceanographer out there who does not realize that there is no sign of ocean warming not related to ENSO, PDO and AMO.

Everyone who has looked at ocean chemistry knows that the ocean are basic, and always will be (and the most productive parts of the ocean have the lowest Ph.

So why are the warmists
angry?

Is it because the global warming fable that they have long embraced is crumbling before their eyes, and they don't like being duped?

@NickS

As you pointed out, there are sharks circling this subject matter. As I pointed out, the existence of sharks does not invalidate the science.

As it happens, I (along with many others) never agreed with the analysis leading to that "hockey stick" theory - at least not on the time frames proposed. Too many unjustified assumptions went into producing that result, the keyword being "unjustified" - IE: lacking proper scientifically argued justification.

That $70B is to climate science research. It's not like they are cherry picked for their prior bias. I won't deny they might have one (either way), but the basis of the funding is on the scope and reliability of the data they produce. Peer reviewed data.

What you are implying, is that governments are cherry picking research people and trying to foster a particular set of beliefs.

If I were you, I would be careful about calling others delusional.

Comment Moderation

I'm actually fine with allowing the trolls to comment here. They are frighteningly representative of a minority of public opinion, and it is useful to be aware of what stuff they are making up. All of the nonsense being spouted by Illahie or NickS is also coming out of the mouth of U.S. Senator James Inhofe, a ranking member of Committee of the Environment and Public Works. He's an example of what is keeping progress from happening. As a Senator he does have influence on international affairs too. International treaties must pass the Senate.

Actually, I'm surprised there have only been three or four denialists here in the comments -- that number has come down from past years. Maybe there are other conspiracies they are doing battle with!

How much is too much?

10% trollspam? 20%? 50%?

How much is too much?

10% trollspam? 20%? 50%?

@Illahie

"Everyone who has looked at ocean chemistry knows that the ocean are basic, and always will be (and the most productive parts of the ocean have the lowest Ph."

Citation needed. In fact, I suspect you will find the bulk of that "everyone" would disagree with this statement.
I know quite a few that would. Every scientist involved in compiling the 1100 page report this summary is based on, for starters. The list is mildly impressive.
I suggest you read it, the analysis is good, and very readable. I am slogging through it as time allows.

The rest of your posting is similar in vein, blanket unsupported statements without analysis or citation.

I have a suggestion, why don't you pick out specific sections of this 1100 page report, and refute them in detail - one by one.

Koch Bro

"The effing Koch Bros. sponsored the "research" by fake skeptic Richard Muller." NickS

And isn't that delicious? Man, was Koch pissed. The Heartland Institute would never have contradicted him. In fact, Koch had a pretty dismal 2012. Funding Muller backfired, and trying to buy the election simply made Karl Rove rich. Support for the Dems increased and climate change is back near the top of the agenda. Maybe he should stick to funding the ballet.

Drinking each other's bath water

"It’s bad enough when major environmental organizations continue to lie about a “global warming” that does not exist in lieu of a planetary cooling cycle now entering its 17th year, but when those allied with the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are also in charge of producing a government report on it, the public is being lied to in ways that obscure their bias and agenda.

This is the case of the recently released draft report of the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) titled “Climate Change and the American People.” The majority of the thirteen senior scientists responsible for it are closely allied with the IPCC. No doubt, the final report will be cited by the IPCC as further “proof” that global warming is real. "

" Environmental studies professor, Roger Pielke Jr., notes that among those in charge of the latest government report are its chairman, biologist Jerry Melillo whose online bio cites his “long association with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” One of its vice chairmen, economics professor Gary Yohe has the same credential. Others affiliated with the IPCC are James Buizer, Sharon Hayes, Thomas Karl, Susanne Moser, Richard Moss, and Donald Wuebbles whose academic bio says he “shares in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

"The connections between these folks and environmental organizations include the fact that vice-chair Gary Yohe is part of a World Wildlife Fund panel and Richard Moss used to be employed as a WWF vice president. The WWF is one of the leading advocates of global warming. James Buizer is on the board of directors of Second Nature a group whose mission is to create a sustainable society by transforming higher education. In other words, ensuring that yet another generation passing through our universities absorb the global warming hoax.

"The federal government has been funding these bogus reports and “research” about global warming to the tune of billions of dollars for years. The entire purpose is to keep the hoax alive and it has ensured that agencies such as NOAH and NASA have participated. Other than Al Gore, the leading proponent of global warming has been James Hansen who continues to head NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"It is so bad at NASA that, in February 2012, a group of twenty former NASA scientists formed a group called The Right Climate Stuff to dispute and debunk the many lies associated with global warming.

"Fundamentally, you cannot trust anything the federal government, nor its lackeys in the mainstream media, regarding anything you read or hear about global warming or climate change. It is a tsunami of lies."
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool

oh well

I have a suggestion, why don't you pick out specific sections of this 1100 page report, and refute them in detail - one by one.

It was worth asking.

No censorship

I agree with you Booker. Given the fine line moderators must walk, I would always prefer they avoid even the hint of censorship.

This can be difficult when the discussion gets heated and insults start to fly. Having been there myself, it's easier when the commentators recognize and respect the difficulty of doing fair and honest comment moderation.

There are unstated responsibilities involved with being a reader, or in commenting.

See?

How many column inches does little nicky get? Scrolling past anything with his handle only takes seconds, but what does that add up to considering his limitless repetition? What is the correct trade-off ratio for freedom of speech versus minimal functionality?

@Hakuin

Re: NickS

I see your point, but there is a fundamental principle involved. Once moderation starts down that road, choices become murky. Motives become questionable, and rightly so.

We are all participants here, including moderators.

I have a descriptive phrase for Nick, originally coined for a friend of mine when he consumed a bit too much:
"Permanently locked on transmit".

Itsbin real

Like Hak I'm certainly no scientist, just a common tater with a bias.
I have been lied to so long, so hard and so often by my government and the media that I choose to navigate with my nose rather than examine the horse shit they present.
What I have learned from this forum is that to be bound gagged and beaten by a bunch of left wing do gooders would probably be every bit as serious as the foolishness in Git Bay. I reckon that if you can convince someone that every time they exhale they are poisoning the planet then you have created an entity that would commit murder or suicide on command.

Yeahright

Another nazi "victim", goway kid, ya bother me

Cruc

We can't clean up the whole world. But we can keep our own toilets plunged.

For Nick

"The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?"

I nominated that posting for a best. All these years I thought Don Cherry created the "hoaky stick graph."

I certainly found nuggets in all of your commentary. Maybe some time you could fill us in on the worst toxins we are pumping into our biosphere daily and who profits most?

Oh gawd

A least PRETEND to be two different people

Yup

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/04/fox-news-fictional-climate-math/192516

Planetary habitable zones

Sometimes you find out things from the oddest places. This comes from an updated model for calculating the habitable zones of planets in other solar systems.
The previous estimate for the width of the HZ from this model in our Solar system was 0.95-1.67 AU.

The updated model puts this zone at 0.99 AU and 1.70 AU for Earth. Quite close to the inner edge, although more work hints that both the inner and out edges may be extended slightly.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674

Yeah, 98% of all 77 "climate scientists" who answered

"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from?

It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Ho ho, hearty har, har, ha! ROTFL!

now that could be taken as encouraging Cruc

maybe buys us time

maybe buys us time

Not really. It means we may be more sensitive to heat retention from excess greenhouse gases, not less. It also means we are more sensitive to solar variations, than if we were farther out.

An AU (Astronomical Unit) is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun.

The "habitable zone" is defined by solar orbits where liquid water can exist. Closer in, and it starts to bleed off through evaporation. Beyond the zone and it stays as ice.

But just because a planet is "in the zone", doesn't make it habitable. Gravity, to hold on to an atmosphere, is critically important as well. Consider the moon.
In theory, a larger planet could still be classified as "habitable" a slight bit closer than the "zone", depending on high air pressure to maintain a small amount of "water" at the surface (water evaporates at slightly lower temperature at altitude, slightly higher in an undersea lab).

The models do allow for minor variations to accommodate special cases.

Free to, what?

cityzen, we must have room for all except the hate and violence perpetrators.

Even if some like trolling, frequent posters can easily skip comments from these. Perhaps one must cherry pick some comments.

But for some funky need, many posters want to engage and try to challenge contrary positions, knowing that it's mostly a no-win game. Gotta keep trying :-)

So, hang in there. Most of the articles are good, well researched and thought provoking. And then we have a very mixed bag of posters. "All good" to a point.

Then again, some are much better than others.

The "Tyee too deems site hits much more important than fostering civil discussion". A rather harsh critique of the organization's policies.

On what grounds would you request denier type posters to be censured?

Frameworks of logic and evidence, despite foibles and blind spots, must take preference over frameworks of faith, regardless of origin.

Faith can guide curiosity, but must never determine the scope of investigation, data determination or reporting. Indeed, that better process is how we got good research data and true scientific conclusions.

We always will need some high quality sceptics, scientific knowledge keeps improving, but it's rarely contradictory to the larger ideas, those often termed "scientific revolutions".

As to CC, the data will continue to be assembled for a very long time, but some people prefer to turn it into a futile sort of delayed casino game.

Might as well be arguing intelligent design.

That dammed frog, he jumped out of the kettle again.

Bad news! Global Sea Ice Above Normal

30 years of unprecedented melting and polar amplification has lead to above normal sea ice area on planet earth – in the middle of the Antarctic summer.

The latest numbers are : Antarctic +.66 million km² Arctic -,63 million km²
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/global-sea-area-is-above-normal/

Just the kind of fact the censorship crew would prefer never to see posted here.

Yawn...

A couple of days ago Eric Nadal was telling us that drought was increasing worldwide and our food supply was at critical risk.

"Between 1950 and 2008, the portion of the Earth subject to at least moderate drought rose significantly, from around 15 per cent of all global land area to around 25 per cent."

Today, we are told.

"Heavy downpours are increasing in most regions of the U.S., especially over the last three to five decades. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been above average in every region of the country, except Hawaii. "

Another yawn. Yes, these brilliant experts are right, the climate does change and yes, there are wonderful statistics to mould into all kinds of scary articles, ad nauseum.

Oh, oh! The sun's coming out. Climate Change!!!

Free means no one wants to pay for it

Free speech is for citizens, not for spammers. And no valid democracy gives equal attention to the speech of the insane. It's stupid to have any and all comments treated equally.
@OwlRol...the grounds for censure were already stated as "spam" - deniers spread disinformation on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, and are usually paid to do so, spamming not just comment boards but all places the community meets. Under the code of conduct here, I believe spam is targeted.
I don't agree that climate change deniers are just skeptics. Honest skeptics weigh the available data, and base their opinions on such. Climate change science has been creating such data for decades now, and the global scientific community has long come to consensus. That message is one constantly subverted by deniers. Climate science only works now to refine the "when" and "how bad", not the "if". Anyone who's skeptical now hasn't looked at the facts. The time for skepticism on global warming is over, as the time for debate on evolution is archaically over, only populated now by preschoolers/delusional/corporate-spammers. To not work actively to immediately combat this grave threat to humanity and life on the planet is not just irresponsible, it's suicidal. Any politician not working to leave fossil fuels in the ground should be fired, if not tried for crimes against humanity. That the Tyee willingly gives equal space to deniers/spammers makes it a tool for their malignant propaganda. And not having a moderator or decent rating system allows any monkey-at-a-keyboard to degrade the discussion to idiocy, reflecting poorly on the site itself, and by extension on its readers. I really don't think that's the direction in which the Tyee wanted to go, but there it is.

The deniers and the conspiracy theorist

Well, I looked through all your sources of information,deniers. Magazine articles, blog posts by back-of-the-envelope pundits like the hilariously boneheaded Steve Goddard (not even his real name.) Paid propaganda sites from conservative "think tanks" like Junk Science, outright, full-blown conspiracy sites from iReckon. Wow!

You know the rule don't you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're saying that 97% of the world's published climate scientists are wrong, and your evidence is an article in a popular magazine? Excuse me.

The only thing extraordinary about the evidence I see produced by you climate change deniers is how extraordinarily inane it is.

How about a compromise, city?

Rather than ban and have to listen to more bullshit accusations of " censorship" how about the Tyee provides a play-pen? The drivelers and shills could be sent to a thread all their own and those of us interested in discussion and learning could carry on unmolested? It shouldn't cost the Tyee much to operate a standing penalty box since it would have no moderation (or readership) at all. Everybody would be happy, they would get their soapbox and we would get some peace. What would we call such a thread?

Hide Your Books!

The Book Burners are about. No dissent permitted! I wonder how the families of service personnel that died for our freedoms feel now?

History Repeating.

Crank it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_1tCasi_Q

No, actually I'm saying that 75 Climate scientists are wrong

because that is the true number making up that "97% of world's published climate scientists" as I showed above.
It keeps getting colder and CO2 keeps going up.
When does reality break through the bafflegab?

The Sun controls climate, always has, always will.
"A chapter in the book, Global Warming - Impacts and Future Perspective, published in September 2012, finds that at least 63% of the global warming of the past 400 years was due to an increase in solar activity. According to the authors, "The sudden increases of solar activity that occurred after the 1724 and 1924 solar dynamo transitions have been accompanied by sudden increases of average surface temperature of 0.2ºC and 0.34ºC after 1724 and 1924, respectively. Therefore, out of the total increase in global temperature of ~ 0.8ºC during the past 400 years, less than 0.3ºC may be of non-solar origin, in agreement with previous results." The authors predict a decrease in solar activity during the 21st century will result in global cooling of 0.64ºC over the next 100 years."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/new-book-finds-at-least-63-of-global.html

Hah!

TOLD you he was an American!

So nick

Tell me what you think of "feaures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Oop, sorry about that. :)

"Features"

98% of those who said yes were Yes Men

The whole idea of a "scientific consensus" is ridiculous.
It's like walking into a church and asking how many people believe in God.
Those here who use the term "denier" and compare that to the "flat-earth" train of thought,or Nazis have it completely backwards.
By arguing that the majority agree, therefore it must be right, they are doing the exact thing the flat crowd did to those who question the "consensus".
And by promoting the censoring, detainment or removal of those who "deny" they are no better than the Nazis in their quest to save the world as they see fit.
Science is science, and nature will tell us in the end whether our projections are right or not.
So far they have missed the mark entirely.

Forgive me Father Theo

I have sinned, foolishly acting as a shill for truthfull journalism I shared these sites in another comment section.

Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/?context=home
Also Paul Craig Roberts

Let the attacks begin.

off you go then

http://turkpsikiyatri.org/arsiv/kuhn-ssr-2nded.pdf

DJC

So far they have missed the mark entirely

They have somewhat missed the mark in that the predictions of the models have been, in many cases at least, too conservative. Most of the effects are turning our to be greater than modeled.

Saying that there is a "scientific consensus" in not an argument from authority.
The term is used to indicate that a particular subject has been thoroughly tested and confirmed, yet, as with all of science, remains provisional. If new evidence is discovered that "greenhouse gases" do not in fact cause a greenhouse effect, then the consensus would change. The odds of such evidence appearing are vanishingly small, but not zero.

Also, see Godwin's Law. You lose.
__________________
I was going to say, that if some of the commenters here are paid shills of the oil industry, then the oil industry is not spending its money wisely. Then I think of the Heartland Institute, or Whatsupwiththat, and realize that the oil industry's standards are exceedingly low. They could be paid trolls. It doesn't really matter to me.

I disagree for free

I find the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with the idea that man's CO2 emissions are warming the planet in a dangerous way must be paid by industry to be truly laughable.
I think it might be lost on some here that the argument is not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes (some) warming, but it is that natural processes eclipse what man's impact is (as far as climate) on a regular basis.
It is simply Fearmongering based on a scientific reality which has been extrapolated and expanded into a doomsday prophesy.
No claims of any such effects matter at all if the natural world does not confirm them.
Name calling and other acts of zealotry by those who support the climate industry simply lends itself to the corrupt and pseudo-scientific nature of the AGW scam.
With people like Al Gore, David Suzuki, Mike Mann and Bill McKibben leading the charge it's hard to believe that anyone still thinks this has anything to do with anything but money.
You guys keep waking up after the rapture and re-checking your math.
"Oh, we forgot to carry the two."
"Sooooooooooon!"

Refuse to Admit

Most posters here will refuse to admit that natural processes drive climate variability and that mans impact on the planets climate system though CO2 emissions is negligible because of a number of facts:
- If man isn't responsible for change then we are powerless to use it against one another to force changes in behaviour, or extract money
- If people aren't scared they won't listen
- If people won't listen they won't change the behaviours that some here find unacceptable
- If industry can exist without causing irreperable harm to the planet then they have no reason to fight it
- If the whole CO2 scam is shown to be solely based on the transfer of wealth (with a select few becoming incredibly wealthy while it happens) from rich to poor nations following an enviro-socialist agenda, they will realise that they have spent their entire lives crusading for the real 1% as a well behaved drone.

The Good Old Days

Remember when it used to be too many people on the planet? Whatever happened to that scare?

The most way to close down

The most way to close down the ignorant denialists is simply to ignore their posts. Denied the oxygen of attention, they may wilt.

This may also lead more posters to start proposing what we should be doing about climate change.....

well DJ

would you like a forum where everyone agreed with you? Wouldn't that be nice? We are working on it. It will be a very exclusive club.

ok frank

I'm all ears, what ya got?

What do you propose Frank?

Write a letter to the Sun?
Start a petition asking the clouds to stop being so much better as greenhouse gasses than CO2?

Was anyone talking to you,

DJ?

Hey Hakuin,

Am I ruining your unmolested learning?
Are you going to call me names for pointing out that you guys all seem to be mixing a big batch of Kool-Aid from each-others bathwater, then back-slapping around the circle in a never-ending cycle of self-righteous fluffing?

It was never about climate anyway

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010

Reinforcements

Looks like the denialists have called in reinforcements. Trying to make up in noise what they lack in analysis and reasoned critique.

There is a common thread through those postings, they pop up data from various places, with a challenge for everyone to "explain it". If it isn't explained to their satisfaction, they cite it as "proof" that global warming doesn't exist.

But it does..

Coming from a skeptic background myself, I closely watched the conversion of Richard Muller, from a being a prominent and heavily quoted climate change skeptic, to concluding that global warming was real. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

More interesting is the project he got involved with during this process. The data they analyzed, the sources, the charts, the conclusions. Some samples:

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/

Note the global temperatures. Note the variations in the regional data. Not all regions are rising at the same rate, and a few have even gone down. The regions that have gone down, do not invalidate the global results. Not by any means.

Remember, this analysis comes from a former, highly quoted, "denier". His scientific reputation was at stake. He analyzed and accepted the irrefutable data. If you want to deny that global warming is happening, that's the data you must refute.
Pointing out individual cases where the overall global trend doesn't match local conditions isn't a refutation. It's a cop out. It's clinging to anything you can, to support a fervent belief.

..

It's an interesting point that the increase in antarctic sea ice is close to the same loss as seen in the arctic. But that is a single shot of data, not a trend over time. The antarctic is also mostly a land mass, not an ice covered sea. Different forces in effect.
It's still one of the many "individual cases" that doesn't match a simplistic interpretation of the overall trend. Those cases are included in the modeling, and the data sets. The models account for them, even though the models cannot specifically state where and when they will occur.

The deniers can point to any exceptions they wish, it proves nothing in the overall case. If they want to prove global warming doesn't exist, they have to refute the data that proves it.

Which coincidentally is what Richard Muller started out to do.

@Hakuin

I don't recommend you suggest the Tyee go down the road of censorship. Of any kind.

The deniers perform a useful function in these discussions, no matter how frustrating it might be at times. For the most part, the weakness of their scattershot examples simply go to show their lack of true understanding. Occasionally, they may come up with something interesting.
But the most useful function they perform, is pointing out where the "latest" denier data is coming from. Don't ignore it, read it, and research it. Fit it into the overall trends that we already know about. When someone else comes along quoting the same data, you can truthfully say "I've read it, it fits here, it doesn't invalidate the global results."

You see, the denialists are trying to convince you based on information you haven't seen. If it isn't new (and it usually isn't), and you already have absorbed and discounted it, they are at a loss. You are not responsible to educate them, but if they freely offer new knowledge to you, there is nothing wrong with taking it.

If you censor them, you will be cutting off sources of new knowledge.

Windpower Certainly Reduces the Population

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

Spinning Wheels.

He-a Culpa"
"I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood.
"We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilization."

James Lovelock - originator of the Gaia theory

Windpower

Seen it, read it, researched it. Not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Exactly what does it have to do with climate science?

Muller was NEVER a "denier"

The skeptic who claims to have debunked climate skepticism never was a skeptic.

About Berkeley’s Richard Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006.

In his own words:
"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic," he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. "Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller 'Physics for Future Presidents' I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419

@DJC

I've read through all your comments as a block, trying to get a handle on where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to fall into 3 major categories;

"Name calling by the climate believers doesn't change the reality that it isn't happening".

"Climate science is being used solely as a global mechanism to transfer wealth."

"Climate change isn't caused by any of man's activities, so there is nothing we can do about them anyway."

Having been on the receiving end of "name calling" by nearly all the "climate change deniers" before your appearance, I would say your first point is a wash. There is more than enough name calling going around - on both sides. It may be emotional, but it's still irrelevant.

Your second category may be real, or it may be false. I see lots of "sharks" on both sides of the issue that are hoping/trying to line their pockets. That's human nature, but hardly a conspiracy.

Your last category is interesting, and one that I have been looking to quantify, along with many scientists worldwide. The best we can come up with at this time is we are "uncertain" what the human generated effects have on the final picture. The effect certainly isn't zero, fundamental science processes prove that it must be something. How much? Can't say for sure. Could it account for all of it? Still can't say for sure. Half? Still can't say.
It's an area of ongoing research. Very tough to separate out the human effects and assign a "number" to it. Current research tends to point to (not predict!) a significantly high percentage of the current global climate change is caused by human activity.

Climate data assures us quite a change in the future. We cannot yet assign a accurate qualitative or quantitative number to human activity, even though we know it can't be zero.
*IF* the human factor turns out to be significant, the time for selective changes is long past.

The longer we wait, the worse it will be.

The point is that we know there is a problem. We know there is something we *can* do. We just don't yet know if it will have a negligible or significant affect on the problem.

Logically, should we be taking action on the human contribution now, or should we wait until the answers are all in?

I'm actually quite curious about your answer to that question.

@NickS

Are we down to a "war of quotes"? How quaint.

How about this one, written by his own hand, not a quote by some reporter.

" CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. "

I already gave you the link, but here is it again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The point is that he was quoted many times previously by people wishing to deny the validity of climate data. He was an iconic reference.

But he was still a scientist. Quite a good one. It just took him longer to accept the validity of the data, and the inexorable conclusions.

Add to it, the ones that wish to deny the validity of his data and conclusions, have not yet been able to do so.

You can't refute the data, so attack the author. Hmmm..

My quote is earlier, before he converted his conversion

Warmists will say anything and often forget what what they swore to at an earlier date.

Muller and his daughter are in the Climate Business together.

"Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy. Just how impartial was BEST?“

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start.”

Muller and Associates helps investors profit from investments in alternative energy."
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/elizabeth-muller-director-of-best-ran-a-green-government-consultancy/
What slimy creeps!

A blast from the past

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

You are quite patient Cruc,

I am not. I've counted their rifles too many times before, it's just not a good investment of my time to glean the few, tiny and wholly accidental flecks of even pyrites contained in their mountain of dross.

Not to mention they are not my social equals, like boors at a party they quickly cease to amuse. Better my time be spent on the worthy. Do carry on though, your analyses always have something of value in them. :)

You are quite patient Cruc,

I am not. I've counted their rifles too many times before, it's just not a good investment of my time to glean the few, tiny and wholly accidental flecks of even pyrites contained in their mountain of dross.

Not to mention they are not my social equals, like boors at a party they quickly cease to amuse. Better my time be spent on the worthy. Do carry on though, your analyses always have something of value in them. :)

@NickS

You are still attacking the messenger, ignoring his message. Until you can refute the message, you are waving at shadows. Attempted misdirection away from the real issue.

That data is not faked up. It is real. Feel free to double check it yourself. The conclusions are irrefutable, but you are free to perform your own analysis and attempt to refute it.

Your pointed question on impartiality of BEST edges on slander. For one that is so quick to point out legal consequences of false implications, I find that surprising. In any event, he has laid out all the evidence for you, feel free to prove it.

As pointed out in the link you supplied from the Huffington Post, the Koch Foundation supplied the funding for the BEST project. They were less than pleased with the results. Make sure you include that in your evidence leading to impartiality.

The 2003 quote wasn't a scientific analysis. It was an opinion gleaned from his reading of paleoclimate. If you want to get the full context of where that quote came from, try:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/1/

Read the whole thing yourself, but here is a little larger quote - from the original (page 2):

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious. "

As I said, read the whole thing. Far from supporting your contention, it enhanced his reputation as a "climate change skeptic".

I could go on and point out the mistakes in your analysis of his daughter's involvement, and perhaps influence. But I am limited by the character count per post.
Besides, it is a sign of respect if I leave you to do your own full research and analysis, and post the results here. I can helpfully point the way, but I am not responsible to complete your education.

I am devastated

I can hardly contain my tears. To be thought not to be the "social equal" of that upstanding and totally truthful paragon that is Hakuin.

@Hakuin

"Not to mention they are not my social equals"

Careful there.

I don't have *any* "social equals". They are all different. viva la difference...

Just because we happen to be on the same side of this issue, doesn't mean that will always be true. I cheerfully look forward to that day, it should be fun..

Tut tut nick

Stand up straight now and be a man! It is never too late for the truly penitent to mend. Mayhap the good Cruc might see clear to taking you under his wing and generously provide the tutelage you require to meet standard. There's a good lad now.

:)

Truly you are zadkrdga!

@NickS

You really had me going on that one. I had to dig. Talk about obscure references.

zadkrdga indeed. Praise too high me thinks, much too high.

@NickS

I'd like to leave you with one more thought.

The second paragraph of the expanded quote from Richard Muller in 2003. Let me repeat it here.

"Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious. "

There is a lesson here. This applies to both sides of the question. You don't get to do shoddy work when "disproving" climate data either. You can't cherry pick data, nor deny the existence of data, nor can you quote out of context (like the media does).

I'm not expecting you to do the work yourself. But you should at least carefully read all aspects of any particular claims, including refutations. Analyze the claims, if not the data. One question that has to always be at the back of your head, "Am I drawn to this report because it supports my beliefs, or because it provides an alternate explanation of all the other data?"

Think of it this way.
Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory are dramatically different. That doesn't mean Newton was wrong. His equations are perfectly valid, and produce perfectly good results - but not in all cases. You would have had a very difficult time proving his equations (and their predictions) were "wrong". But there were minor anomalies.
Along came Einstein with a complete new theory. It explained everything Newton explained, and it also explained the anomalies. For the most part it produced testable predictions exactly in line with Newton's, for very different reasons. Only in special cases did it differ, and more closely matched real observations. It would have been absolutely useless if it only explained the anomalies.

If you want to find something that "proves" current climatology science wrong, you had better come up with something that fully explains the current data, as well as additional data.

It would be a relief to a lot of people, including concerned scientists worldwide, if you could come up with one. Unless of course the predictions of your new theory are worse than the current one. Even so, it would advance the science.

Crucible

Nice check of NickS's quote mining.

Cruc

"Current climatology"...which ?
Svensmark and CERN proved the Sun controls climate and the current stalling of temperatures in spite of continually rising CO2, proves CO2 doesn't.

"U.S. scientists have never been so consistently wrong, while so vehemently denying they have been wrong, despite all the objective empirical evidence that clearly shows they have been wrong - partisanship science run amok.

Case in point: climate scientists' claims that higher CO2 levels cause accelerated warming and dangerous climate change, resulting in more severe and frequent weather disasters, per their C-AGW hypothesis.

One, the top chart on the left is a plot of U.S. monthly temperatures since 1895 and global atmospheric CO2 levels. As the chart depicts, CO2 levels have had spectacular growth but U.S. temperatures exhibit no trait of the long predicted rapid acceleration (note the rather stable red curve representing the 5-year moving average).

Two, the top right chart shows the the number of extreme violent tornadoes on the decline since the 1970's, contrary to "consensus" science forecasts.

Three, the bottom left graph plots the 'power dissipation' of hurricanes that made landfall on U.S. coasts, which has also declined over the last few years, revealing no trend up/down since 1900. Note the reduction of this metric for 2012, which government scientists have stated to be the warmest year ever for the U.S.

Finally, the lack of a robust CO2 impact on global weather events is depicted in the bottom right chart. Clearly, there has been no increase in the frequency of global cyclones. (And, global temperatures have also done squat versus the anti-science claims of partisan Democrat scientists.)

Conclusions: Climate science has become clown-science due to the politicization by left-wing ideologues. Atmospheric CO2 levels are not a primary driver of global warming, nor climate change/violent storms. Btw, that's not to say that CO2 has zero influence."
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/extreme-violent-storms-decline-us-co2-growth-has-minimal-impact-temperatures-climate-change.html

@NickS

Hmmm.. Somebody is cooking or cherry picking the data. When I compare the temperature results on that chart with other sites covering the last 100 years, they have various discrepancies.

The other sites do provide the raw source for their data, this one does not. I cannot compare the different raw data to see where discrepancies originate.

You may have found examples of cooked/picked data. The question now is to determine who is doing the cooking. Get the raw source for those charts, and compare against the other raw sources.

There is a big difference between the satellite data

and the land based data for a number of reasons,
the most prominent of which is the fact that James Hansen has been "adjusting" the land data. He also has been selecting land stations which suit his purpose and omitting ones which don't.

Even with all that "adjustment" even Hansen admits, "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." --James Hansen et al., 15 January 2013

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10915-james-hansen-nasa-admits-global-temperature-standstill-is-real

@NickS

Still, that sites doesn't supply the raw data. I don't even have the opportunity to do a spot cross check.

Your example chart shows very little variation for over 100 years. This is decidedly different than every other source, including satellite data. Why? Without a source, it is impossible to verify, or challenge the conclusions.

differences in data

I posted that comment before I was done (distracted).

Satellite didn't exist 100 years ago, so this chart can't be based purely on such.

Yes, there are differences in satellite vs ground based readings. Other sources take this into account, and that is where the adjustment factors come in. Given good instrumentation, would you trust a satellite reading over a ground reading? If so, why?

This is what I mean about cherry picking data.

Crucible - Three Points

Point 1 - Name calling happens from both sides, ad hominem attacks emerge where science disagrees, but I do take issue with the term "denier". It has such negative undertones when considered in the realm of scientific discussion. Data and emotion are incompatible, but we are human.
Point 2 - The "sharks" as you term them may happen to be on both sides, but it is not as simple as fossil fuel vs. science (as some may see it) There is considerable money on both sides, but the whole social component of wealth redistribution and the effects of funding dispersion through the academic realm is a very serious concern when it comes to true "science". If 99 researchers are paid to look for mans influence on climate and 1 is looking at how the sun impacts the Earth - Just what do you think is going to hit the papers?
Point 3 - The most important one in my mind as well. If we look at the lack of data surrounding forcing in most all models available we see that it is entirely up to the researchers to tweak the models in order to get them to show what they fit. When you look at the rate and magnitude of change in temp compared to CO2 levels you see that even though Co2 has gone up in the last decade, the temp has not. Only the models show the direct link (at the level of a few degrees) between CO2 moving from 350 to say 400 and the rise in temp of up to 3 degrees - empirical evidence shows a rise of more like 1 point something. Now how much of that is due to manmade CO2 emissions? How can you argue that we are changing the climate in a dangerous way when the rise in temp falls within the error margin of models, and most often doesn't even hit the lowest projected rise?

All the hype about our impact though CO2 emissions fails to match up with what is being seen in the real world. Attempts to link severe weather with manmade emissions are weak at best , and only serve to strengthen the idea that weather and climate are within our control - therefore society must either suffer monetarily, or reduce industry (emissions of CO2) to a level dictated by self appointed groups supported by various governments.

Of course our actions (land use, heat island effects, logging ect.) have an impact on local climate, and may influence global systems to a certain degree, but the focus on CO2 as a primary driver is in my opinion entirely flawed and solely supported because of its direct link to human industry and the resulting "stick" that can be used to create, move or block wealth.

@NickS

One little tidbit found in that second link;

"Arctic sea ice extent today is, for all practical purposes, back to normal!"

While winter coverage area is back to the same, the depth of that coverage is far from being the same. There is still less than normal winter sea ice, by volume.

This is another example of cherry picking. If they claimed that the winter ice was the same, by volume, they would have every scientist in the world accusing them of falsifying data.

Well, go find it

Knock yourself out!

Remember it is up to you guys to prove that 0.04% of a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere controls climate, not the other way around.

So far, the fail is enormous, since temperatures have failed to climb in spite of rising CO2. The oldest data set in the world shows what nonsense the CO2 hypothesis is.

"AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/

Bye, bye!

It would be interesting to see

Those who insist CO2 is not a significant factor also loudly condemning the burning of fossil fuels and pushing hard for solar, tide and wind power. There are plenty of other good reasons to call for a stop to burning coal, gas and oil. Why is it that the denialists are invariably in bed with the corporations profiting from the staus quo? Could they just be ordinary theives and liars?

One more thing

A search for "manipulation of temperature data"
brought up numerous references like:
http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-agency-taken-to-court-accused-of-data-manipulation/

Heh!

That's right nick, declare victory while hip deep in defeat and lead a heroic charge away from the battlefield. :)

@DJC

"If 99 researchers are paid to look for mans influence on climate and 1 is looking at how the sun impacts the Earth"

The trouble is, that is a big "if". In reality, the sun's influence has been considered in many models and analysis. It is minimal at best. Your surmise is valid, but the "if" turns out not to be the case.

"When you look at the rate and magnitude of change in temp compared to CO2 levels you see that even though Co2 has gone up in the last decade, the temp has not"

And that's the problem with short baselines. There is about a 20-30 year delay in the cause and observed effect cycle. When you stretch your baseline further out, these effects become obvious.

"Now how much of that is due to manmade CO2 emissions?"

That's the question I am grappling with, and scientists worldwide don't have a clear answer, yet. They know it can't be zero, but they can't put a justifiable (reasoned and defensible) number on it. Little? Lots? Can't say yet.

But you didn't answer my question. Was that simply an oversight?

@NickS

I don't need to knock myself out.

Coincidentally, the raw data running from 1750 to today is right here. Much of it comes from the data you reference.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe

The raw data used to generate the chart is only one click away.

@NickS - One more thing

Ah, climategate. Yes, it was real. But quickly corrected as well. The wrong was righted.

Such egregious cherry picking is impossible to detect if you don't have the raw data. Science demands the raw data supporting the conclusions (and charts) be published as well.

I tend to ignore reports without raw data and reasoning, showing why they lead to the conclusions.

@the crucible

Your question, in my mind, is moot.
Human ego is solely responsible for creating a discussion where the power of the Sun is dismissed in favour of focusing on a gas (which is building block of life on Earth) which happens to be released as a byproduct of converting stored energy for human use.
It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and traps heat when in the atmosphere, that is not in question.
What is entirely in question is whether the CO2 levels today pose a risk to humanity, through actions taken by humanity itself, by creating increased temperatures on Earth.
The resulting answer is no.
You can dwell on specific scientific points all you want, but in the end you are arguing about something that does not matter in the sense that trillions of dollars could be spent, resulting in hardships to societies across the world, which would only serve to adjust concentrations of an insignificant component of the global system - all the while fighting over the magnitude of a signal lost in the noise of other factors at work.
How can you seriously dismiss the Sun as insignificant and then split hairs over fractions of degrees?

@DJC

" What is entirely in question is whether the CO2 levels today pose a risk to humanity, through actions taken by humanity itself, by creating increased temperatures on Earth.
The resulting answer is no. "

I'd like to hear your reasoning and justification for that conclusion. If so, you have answered a question that scientists are struggling with right now. So am I. In particular, I'd like to see how you reconcile it with;

"It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and traps heat when in the atmosphere, that is not in question."

"How can you seriously dismiss the Sun as insignificant and then split hairs over fractions of degrees?"

I don't dismiss it, the data does. It's so tiny that it's effects are mostly lost in the noise of normal variability. Less than .01 of a degree.

With less than a 1 degree difference (so far), we are seeing resulting effects in the arctic summer ice volumes. There are many others, but this is the largest and most obvious.

There is no correlation between solar minimum/maximum and arctic ice.

@DJC

You made a reference earlier to distrusting the models.
In a broad sense, you and might agree on this point, but there are varying degrees of distrust, from distrust of the severity of the predictions to outright rejection of the models. That is were I suspect we would disagree.

The models are not perfect by any means. They are still the best we have. They have improved a lot in the last 10 years. Good enough at this stage they only need to be tweaked, not shelved and rewritten. And they are getting better all the time.

Those same models show a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change. Stronger than any other factors.

But there are other factors that are unanswered yet (tweaks). EG: Is there a point in CO2 concentrations where other factors start to come into play, to reduce or smooth out the long term effects? (Ocean heat/CO2 sinking, increased radiation effects, etc). How much? What levels? No clear answers yet.

The point is that the models (tools) exist. Although not perfect, they give the best answers we can currently get. As I mentioned in a previous article, they are not absolute predictions, they are warning signs. We can elect to ignore the signs, or we can pay attention.

"Risk to humanity"?

Jeesh! CO2 levels hit 400ppm 3 times in the 19th Century. All that happens is that plants grow better. I'm waiting for you guys to start complaining about that. I can see the headlines now---"strangler fig strikes again".

The Sun controls climate not by heat or irradiance alone, but by the strength or weakness of its magnetic field.

Read and learn:
http://cfact.eu/2011/09/08/svensmark-cern-cosmic-rays-influence-climate/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by_24.html

And I remind you again, it is up to those who propose a scientific hypothesis to prove it.

That not only has NOT been done with the Anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis, the lack of temperature rise for 16+ years, while atmospheric CO2 has increased, disproves the hypothesis.

There is just no getting around the fact that no correlation=no causation.

But I don't imagine that will stop the +$150 Billion juggernaut until the US government finally goes broke.

Denier/Denialism

In response to DJC's compaint about the use of these terms:

What we see here, and in the websites promoting the denial of the findings of climate science, is not debate, is is misdirection. Scientists and the public can have, and do have, honest debates about the data. But we have seen here and elsewhere that this argument is NOT about the science, or the data. It is about ideology and avoidance of an uncomfortable, ("inconvenient" is a word Gore used) truth. We have seen the same thing with regard to the biology of evolution, of HIV, of vaccines, and other issues. Wikipedia's entry on the subject is a reasonable definition:

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory. [6]

They go on to point out the five key tools of the denialist: False Experts, Conspiracy Theories, Moving the Goalposts, Cherry Picking, and Logical Fallacies.

All of those methods are in use by the climate change denialists here.

Yes, the term is a negative one, and yes, its use is appropriate.

You bet you sweet A

that I DENY that human generated CO2 changes climate.

How outrageous is the claim that 0.04% of the atmosphere causes both heat and cold, more storms and almost anything else from asthma to Zebra mussels.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

It is really time to put on end to this BS.

NickS

That puts you on par with people who believe the earth is but 10,000 years old. Congratulations. Be proud.

No, sorry, your premise has never been proven

So that puts your claims on par with a 10,000 year old Earth or even transubstantiation.

Svensmark and CERN proved the Sun's magnetic field controls clound formation on Earth, but there is no proof that CO2 causes global warming/climate change/global weirding.

Where's your proof guys?

Cut the BS and show us!

That should be cloud, not clound.

So not to waste a post:

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/

@NickS

"The Sun controls climate not by heat or irradiance alone, but by the strength or weakness of its magnetic field."

This is new..

I tried going to both of your linked "sources", neither of them mentioned fluctuation in solar magnetic field strength. This is noteworthy, perhaps you have confused your sources?

The first links states that "lab demonstrations" were made, without any references to the actual conditions and detailed lab results. Just the bare conclusion.
I did check the direct link to Svensmark, but it is a promotion for his documentary movie. Let me supply a quote (missing context, just like yours):
"The documentary follows Henrik Svensmark in his struggle to find the physical evidence of a celestial climate driver."

The second one does contain a link of sorts, but the link is dead. The blog it links to is offline.

Give me something I can cross check and verify. Something with some science.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite willing to entertain alternate explanations. I find them interesting; if they are strong enough I might even find them convincing. But I need some full science details. The data, the rationale, and a set of justifiable (in peer review science terms) conclusions. Shoddy work just won't do.

@NickS

That 900 year cycle twigged a memory. I had seen it before. Here is a much better report on solar-climate cycles.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

And here is a quote:

"According to Lean and others (1995b), the surface of the Earth has warmed 0.55°C since 1860, and about half of this could be due to increased solar warming since the Maunder Minimum. However, 0.36°C of the 0.55° increase has occurred since 1970. Solar forcing can only account for 0.11° of the 0.36° increase; the rest could be due to greenhouse warming or some
other cause. Thus, there appears to be a real relation between solar activity and global temperature related to solar irradiance, with colder temperatures during sunspot minima."

In the above analysis, they reference a correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the little ice age. The offer no explanation for the lack of a correlation between the Dalton Minimum (early 1800's) and climate. With that in mind, this is an observation that cannot be directly tied to it's conclusion. It remains simply an interesting observation.

There are other climate analysis data that put any effects at much lower than this.

Give it up and stop trying to change the subject

The onus is on you to prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.

What a joke this is. What a con job!

Both the Maunder and the Dalton minima are correlated with low Sunspot activity. If you had bothered to read the material on Svensmark and CERN, you would understand that means more cosmic rays getting through to Earth and providing nuclei for cloud droplets making more cloud and cooling the Earth.

@Booker

When I read your "denier" post I picture a bunch of muslim clerics discussing "infidels" while poring over the Quran quoting Muhammed.
"There is no God but our God"
"There is no Science but our Science"

I would like to hear them

Condemn the burning of fossil fuels and urge development of solar, wind, tide and even ocean thermal.

Let's hear you say it. Condemn burning coal, oil and gas. Go on, say it.

Why, whatever for?

First, there is no such thing as "fossil" fuels and second, once one gets rid of the nonsense about CO2, there is no reason to pursue anything unless it makes economic sense.

One lunacy at a time nick

State that we should stop burning gas/coal/oil for the many obvious reasons that are not directly related to climate change.

The Gods are Angry

Our evil ways have angered the Gods.
We must stop our evil ways or the floods, droughts and famine will continue.
Pay your tithes to the Church, and be good pious peasants while we meet to discuss your salvation.

Sounds a lot like,

Our CO2 emissions are pushing the climate to a tipping point.
We must reduce our emissions or the floods, droughts and famine will continue.
Pay your carbon taxes and reduce your footprints while we meet to discuss your salvation.

@NickS

"The onus is on you to prove CO2 is responsible for climate change."

I can very easily prove that CO2 traps heat in atmosphere. So can you, I told you how. A simple experiment you can perform in your kitchen. Fundamental science.

Why is the "onus" on me to "prove it" at global scale, but you won't accept a similar challenge to explain how fundamental science, when scaled up to global scales, somehow becomes invalid?
Describe the mechanism. At what point in scale, does it stop working?

Even if I grant that solar cycles can affect the climate, the cycles operate in terms of many hundreds of years. Is there any data that supports a solar cause for the observed temperature rise between 1970-2000? What factors in solar dynamics changed between the first half the last century, and the last? How much did they change?
Conversely, what did change?

Remember, we know for a fact that the fundamental science works.
I am even willing to grant that CO2 isn't the only agent in climate change. The models aren't perfect. But until someone comes up with an explanation that fits the total data better, and explains why the fundamental science doesn't apply, it's the best we have.

:)

See? An oil shill will never go on record.

So what that it absorbs a bit of heat, cruc?

1 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

2 There isn't enough of it to make a bloody difference

That's you proof?

Svensmark Theory fits the facts. The CO2 hypothesis doesn't because it HASN'T WARMED SINCE 1998.
NO CORRELATION=NO CAUSATION

You can't wriggle around that one.

But the next time this BS comes up,I bet we're back at square one again.

Say

It

Simple Experiment?

Was this the one you were talking about?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Simple statement

"I oppose the burning of coal, gas and oil".

Eg:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-cancer-diesel-who-idUSBRE85B0ZN20120612

@NickS

Richard Muller's models already use a logarithmic CO2 effect. So do most others. Tell us something we don't know. Old news.

Can you drop this now? Your famed "logarithmic CO2 effect" is already *in* the current models. They match the observed data very well.

Find another horse to beat. This one doesn't ride anymore.
And it sets you back to square one, finding a mechanism to explain why CO2 in the lab shows it's heat retention properties, while on a global scale those lab tests become invalid.

Richard's model is also the most conservative to date, projecting a 3 degree rise by 2100.
You do know what a 3 degree rise means for the planet, don't you?
What if his model is too conservative (as others have suggested), and it ends up being 4, or 6?

There was also a flattening of the rise (in fact a slight dip) between 1950 and 1970. Then it picked right back up again, but at a faster pace. The current models account for that "hold" between 1950 and 1970, just as they allow other possible "holds" between now and 2100.

So, are you suggesting we wait around another 10-20 years to see if you are somehow right?
Or is it that we are be seeing a similar situation as occurred between 1950 and 1970?

Have you actually read any of Muller's research results? It's worthwhile reading, especially for someone that comes from a skeptic background. I know.

@DJC

No, it was this one I suggested to Nick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4

Drop Muller. His work didn't pass peer-review

Yes, the Earth warmed, but nobody has been able to prove CO2 is what done it, least of all phony skeptic R. Muller.

Do you really expect the world to put up with a baseless idea for any longer? Economies have already had much damage done to them. Spain and Ontario threw away years and tax money on useless, unreliable wind.

Your arguments are weak and warped and you keep trying that reverse onus trick.

You have to prove the CO2 hypothesis and it can't be done----or it would have been already.

So, he's against wind

Because it is sinful to "waste money". Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

It would be funny if you weren't so serious about it

"Find another horse to beat. This one doesn't ride anymore."
Perfect.

"Policy on climate change rests on a three-legged stool of forecasts. First, it is necessary to have valid and reliable scientific forecasts of a strong, persistent trend in temperatures. Second, scientific forecasts need to show that the net effects of the trend in temperatures will be harmful. Third, scientific forecasts need to show that each proposed policy (e.g., a policy that polar bears require special protection because of global warming) would provide a net benefit relative to taking no action. A failure of any leg invalidates policy action."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/climate-seers-as-blind-guides/#more-79015

For me the best part is that believers like @the crucible will trumpet a "conservative" model which outpaces current real-world observations by huge margin, and then add caveats which allow for "holds" at any given time to explain away disagreement with their model for the next century or so.

Hmmm, won' t paste

Just google China wind power wiki, I'd say they were doing "OK".

Or a little closer?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/11/f-power-2020-wind-profile.html

Wind or coal?

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2011/06/03/why-us-coal-miners-are-still-d/

"Clean" gas gives "clean"cancer?

http://bcaction.org/2012/11/01/why-fracking-must-be-banned/

Well boys?

Care to leave ever-so-unimportant CO2 aside and condemn the cancer makers?

Say it.

Former Swedish IPCC member says|

'Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/03/top-swedish-climate-scientist-lennart-bengtsson-says-warming-not-noticeable-without-meteorologists/

But we have been treated to endless doomsday scenarios. It would be too late by now, said Prince Charles, many years ago?
We have also been treated to dangerous solutions to this non-problem.

Mercury light bulbs, smart meters irradiating us with microwaves, 20% of the US corn crop going to ethanol to burn in cars. While we "saved" the increasingly dangerous size of the polar bear population, we mustn't leave off killing birds and bats with windmills . Sure they have built a wind farm in the Peace River Vally and the locals support it. It's better than flooding it, from their standpoint.

We may have almost exterminated the orangutan by wiping out habitat all across South East Asia for oil palm for biodiesel.

Save me from those who would "save" the Earth. They are far to dangerous in their blind zealotry.

Solar success

http://mashable.com/2012/11/13/obama-solar-power-germany/

Drinking water? Or fracking waste?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/06/documentary_tackles_controversy_over_fracking_for_gas.html

Say it nick

This is better than burning oil

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EAED/InvestmentInfo/Documents/Ocean27May2010.pdf

Say it

@NickS

"You have to prove the CO2 hypothesis and it can't be done----or it would have been already."

I don't have to, you can prove it in your own kitchen.

If you acknowledge the validity of the experimental data, then the "onus" is on you to reconcile the experimental data with your contentions.

If you refuse the validity of the lab data, then any 10 year old can prove you are wrong.

Have you tried the experiment yet?

@DJC

"Policy on climate change"

It's interesting that you have moved away from a debate based on science, into one based on politics.

I'm about 1/4 of the way through the 1100 page document referenced in the article. It's quite readable.

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-fulldraft.pdf

It was produced by a US Federal Advisory committee, and will be submitted to the US government.

If you read through it, you will find they have met every one of the policy requirements you reference. Each in more than one way.

Peer review

Sure Nick, let's talk about peer review. It's obviously important to you.

Muller's latest papers, including data, methodology, rationale, and conclusions have been submitted for peer review. You are quite correct that review process hasn't completed. There are 4 more papers, that have never been publicized, in process.

So lets make a pact, only articles that have either completed peer review, or are presented to government agencies, be quoted or linked to. A link to the peer review, or government agency, must be part of the citation.

I estimate I will lose at least half of my "sources". But from a quick perusal of your "sources", you will lose very nearly all of them.

Sound like a good deal?

Note: That also means the 1100 page document I am going through right now won't qualify for citation either. It's still a draft copy. But I'll still read it. I'll just to have to find the data and/or conclusions in other peer reviewed documents. Luckily, they supply references, 13 pages of them.

While nick is reading that

Perhaps he could take a moment and condemn the tar sands water pollution
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/08/30/TarSandsStudy/

Just say it's a bad thing nick, nothing to do with CO2, go on, take a moment. After all, what does it mean to you if they are forced to stop it?

The best part of Muller playing PT Barnum for his BEST dreck

is the Michael Mann posting on Facebook:

" My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn’t trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement"

As has often been observed, "It takes one to know one."

Time to stop chasing your tails boys.
Muller showed it warmed starting 200 years before the big rise in CO2 after WW2.

We knew that before his Conversion On the Road to Damascus Road Show.

His playing with numbers still doesn't prove CO2 is what done it, dearies.

So nick is pro-cancer

Tsk tsk

@NickS

"Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew."

You quoted it...
My data comes from a lot more sources than Muller. His is just the most conservative. The most likely to be accepted by people with skeptical reservations. Keep in mind who funded his research, and the reaction when he publicized it.

"His playing with numbers still doesn't prove CO2 is what done it, dearies."

In Muller's own words..

"To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide."

That about says it. You want to refute the model, that is how to go about it. No takers, so far.

...

I don't really expect a facebook posting to be "peer reviewed", but what do you think of the idea? Do you want to play the game that way?

How many times does it have to be pointed out

that showing the world warmed after the Little Ice age, does not nail down the CAUSE as being CO2. If anything it supports a solar involvement.

You cling to BEST and Muller because there is nothing else to cling to and you just hate giving up on the Koch Bros/Big Oil theme.

If CO2 produced warming, it would be warmer now.

The End!

Does it matter what anyone believes?

This thread is exactly why I can't be bothered with humanity anymore. I hope we get obliterated...and sooner rather than later.

Be of good cheer Langley!

We will unquestionably be obliterated.

http://szyzyg.arm.ac.uk/~spm/neo_map.html

Heh heh!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html

No Debate it is already too late

We can not combat climate change without collectively
deciding that our personal over consumption, spurred on
by mass propaganda, and the paradigm of never ending
economic growth, is destructive to ourselves.

Adaptation to the challenges ahead will require a local
community to provide the needs for life.

Good Luck to All!

hakuin

That Fox clip says it all. Jaw-dropping.

Admin says it all.

Allow me to paraphrase here...
"Don't worry true believers, we at the Tyee wouldn't ever "elevate" a "denier" comment to Best.
We, like you, have already made our minds up about how science should be used to support our world-views, and we will continue to ensure that those who would question our position are identified with a suitably derogatory term and effectively dismissed.
As we value free speech we will not actively censor, or prevent such views from being expressed, but we will make it abundantly clear that they are wrong, and that they are bad people.
We encourage the rest of the group to partake in what we consider constructive dialogue, where similar and supporting views are repeated enough times for the ideas found within to become fundamental to our existence.
By doing so, the solutions that arise from such discussions will inevitably be of such a high level of importance that they cannot possibly be ignored by the world."

Go Team!

Let's hear you say burning oil

Is bad.

We better support science in other countries

Looks like Canada is done.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/07/new-policy-gives-government-power-to-muzzle-dfo-scientists/

Admin says it all.

There is nothing wrong with editorial choice or selection. Contrast with editorial censorship.

Both may show an editorial bias, but the results are dramatically different.

Having been in the position of the moderators here, I much prefer the idea of choice selection over censorship.

Just be glad your words are being heard, even if only by the ones that choose to ignore the editorial selections. If they practised censorship (as advocated by a few), you wouldn't be heard at all.

Also, you might consider the thrust of the whole series preceding this one. You could probably guess the editorial position before your first comment.

Not a single denialist site

Tolerates dissenting opinion. They either censor outright or the authors make personal attacks on the commenter. A bit rich to see the denialists whining here.

DJC

Or another way to put it is that we at The Tyee consider those who deny a human cause to climate change and advocate doing nothing to be similar to those who argued a bent 'scientific' basis to racist segregation before civil rights. They used pseudo-science to prop up a status quo in which they were heavily invested, yet a status quo that was patently not morally supportable. They did this by arguing against 'miscegenation' etc. Had there been an internet then they'd have been all over the comment threads with their misbegotten rationalizations. Another example would be the enemies of civilization who marshalled contrarian 'scientific' arguments to support eugenics. Any editor of a publication back then who treated those views as on an equal footing with those who argued for civil and human rights would in retrospect be rightfully disparaged as lacking a rational mind joined to a moral compass. We at The Tyee don't believe denialists act in the interests of humanity and we consider them to be blind to an overwhelming scientific consensus. We don't waste our time zapping their comments and banning them from our boards, but we roll our eyes and would never elevate their harmful foolishness to 'best comment' status. Clear?