Let me guess - this blogger has no qualification in physics of engineering but somehow believes that their qualification - usually in "environmentalism" gives them an insight better than all the sceptics who are qualified to have a view and who have been employed professionally for decades in jobs where they know how to judge good science because that's their job?

Is that it?

Hi, Mike,
Not sure if you're talking about Brad's qualifications, but they are not at issue here. The issue is that a professional who claims to have scientific credentials for his expert opinions is apparently a lackey of fossil fuel industry denialists. The issue is the credibility of a researcher who is paid by the word and doesn't disclose who's paying.

It is a signal of credibility and honor. Your credibility is at stake when you make claims as this scientist has done. When your credibility has been questioned (by receiving money to fund research programs) like what has happened to Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly, in the future people will be skeptical about whether the opinion and scientific statement made is being made by a scientist who has evidence to back up his claim or money in his pocket (or a big ego to fill).

Soon to be indicted as a co-conspirator we hope.

Sorry typo ...

Why am I not surprised that Sen. Inhofe failed to respond to The New York Times' request for comment?

OH THE HUMANITY!....the sordid underworld of male prostitution in the grip (ooh yessss) of the international sex trade....i hear Willie's "specialty" is the oil rubdown with his glasses on....but now it appears he's gotten his willy exposed for all to see, and not a minute too Soon....he's just another dick....

If you want to talk about credibility, receiving funding for research ( from the UN ) designed to promote computer projections of the IPCC ( made on the assumption that effects of CO2 increase should be calculable as increase in warming when signs are clear the process works directly in reverse of that )...that citing 'climate scientists' so poorly thought of that meteorologists were hushed up over their snide commentary does nothing to promote a 'scientific consensus'...which is an echo chamber wrapped in the flag of investigative skepticism.

Dontcha just love the way some pipple have been programmed to spit the names UN and EPA and NOAA, but would wet their pants for the opportunity to have the Kochs come and run their pipe right through their home sweet home bedroom walls, while the whole family's gathered 'round watching Fox?....dim bulbs are one thing....unscrewed is a whole nuther...

John Farnham (@opit) #8,

Funding for research is not an ipso facto problem, it is a common happenstance for all scientists.

Getting ethically repugnant funding from Oil-Qaeda, but not reporting it, is a fraud on the journals.

Especially when doing research on the danage that the crude drug of choice of the mass-murder suicide oil mafia is doing to all of us.

PS: Your implication has been debunked more times than you have lied about it (see any Green News Report @Brad Blog for the links).

Fact-free troll John Farnham has successfully hijacked this thread enough, but two quick points.

First, the main problem is not that Soon received hundreds of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel companies to offer long-debunked, fantastical theories about the sun causing global warming. The problem is that he lied about it by failing to disclose that funding. Guys like John Farnham, however, seem to have no problem standing up for liars.

Secondly, I'm always amused by these "follow-the-money" guys who are such stooges that they seem to have forgotten to notice which industry has more money than any other in the history of civilization. Other than that, of course, follow the money!

Dopes and dupes. Always fun.

Do John Farnham comments come with any kind of decoder ring? It's all just vague incoherent unreferenced references written in an ugly tone.

What Brad said @11 about nutter the John also goes for Mike Haseler (Scottish Septic).

Provocateur-posters should kiss the ground and thank their lucky stars for such intelligent, courteous and explanatory rebuttal as is the wont with the BradBlog....i'm not like that....and i was just getting warmed up....

It is, of course, all too obvious why a company like ExxonMobil, with an annual revenue of more than $407 billion, would, in the face of a growing alternative energy movement advanced to prevent climate catastrophe, fund skeptics like 'Willie' Soon.

But my question to you, John Farnham @8, is: Who at the UN stands to gain economically as the result of scientific affirmation of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming? And what is it that these hidden conspirators at the UN stand to gain?

"John Farnham" probably won't return to see the ass-kicking for the lies he attempts to peddle here. FYI "John": the UN IPCC scientists are all UNPAID VOLUNTEERS. They donated their time and expertise, so you can stop pretending you care about that.

1.2 million.

It's not exactly like winning the powerball is it? If that's your price for killing the planet and yourself, when those corporations could have paid you SO much more, my face would be a little red.

Inhofe probably stands to make a fraction of that. I don't think we'll be getting a reply from the poster boy of climate denial.

You would not require any decoder ring at all to figure out my commentary if you stopped worrying about my motivation long enough to think that shouting down disagreement does diddly for establishing the facts : but it sure runs a lynch mob on supposition and innuendo. There is no way to show that one can predict the future - so there is no shame is saying anyone claiming to do so is fully of baloney. That is all I know for sure. That and climate and weather are both inextricably related and unpredictable.

Farnham's "retort" @18 is reminiscent of the guy who gets checkmated in four moves, then holds up both hands and gleefully proclaims "victory."

Sadly, John, you appear to be in over your head and out of your league.

BTW, John, perhaps you should test your theory of how it is impossible to predict the weather by ignoring a tornado watch and standing outside in order to defy the scientists.

John, there you have the brilliance which defines bradblog.

Based on current atmospheric conditions and/or the personal sighting of funnel clouds or radar indication of funnel clouds present, the national weather service will issue either a tornado watch or warning.

Therefore science is able to predict with certainty future weather conditions. You simply cannot argue with that "logic".

If you think you've found a website which encourages (read:tolerates) debate you are sorely mistaken. As Desi euphorically put it, you have taken your ass kicking. You will either agree with Brad and his few denizen or you will be subject to future "ass kickings" as anything which disagrees with established bradblog dogma is obviously a lie.

WingnutSteve awoke from his winter nap under the bridge long enough to say @ 20:

anything which disagrees with established bradblog dogma is obviously a lie.

Not really. Frequently, your lies are not obvious at all. Which is why folks like you and John, et al, almost never include independently verifiable evidence with those (usually) long-ago debunked claims. Failing to support them makes them seem much more credible to gullible readers.

But, as always, feel free to share the evidence to support your claim here (like I do) as part of the open debate you've been allowed to participate in for years here. Curiously, it seems you always fail to offer evidence to support your claim, choose to not take part in the debate, cry mercilessly that the rules are unfair when you're unable to "win" it, and/or simply declare there is no debate at all. All of it has made you look rather foolish --- over and over again --- over the years.

So, yes, I understand why you'd rather pretend you were being treated unfairly, as opposed to admitting how wrong you almost always are (when typing wingnut talking points in response to actual information.) It's much easier to try and tar the messenger than it is to respond to the message. Particularly when one lacks facts to back up their goofy assertions.

John Farnham said @ 18:

There is no way to show that one can predict the future - so there is no shame is saying anyone claiming to do so is fully of baloney.

Actually, scientists "predict the future" all the time. Ernie gave you one example. Another is when you get cancer and a doctor tells you have have approximately X months to live. Of course, that prediction is not always spot on. But it is, about 99.9% of the time. And, that's a record that is usually "close enough" to encourage most folks to act on that "prediction" in some fashion when they receive it from a scientist.

You are welcome, of course, to ignore the doctors who are telling you the same thing now, but to pretend they are unable to "predict the future" is silly.

Nonetheless, if you'd like to ignore those predictions, that's fine. Here's some well-documented, independently verifiable evidence going back about 10,000 years...

Feel free to ignore the red ("Projected") part of the graph as you like, since, suddenly, scientific predictions are now somehow "fully of baloney".

One other quick point. You said:

climate and weather are both inextricably related and unpredictable.

They are, indeed (and obviously) related. But to pretend they are "unpredictable" means that we have no idea whether the climate will be warm this summer in Las Vegas or cold next winter in the Arctic. Of course, we are able to predict that both things will be true. And, when it comes weather, that too is predictable, as you know, since you choose how to dress each day based on such predictions.

Or, you can just keep re-typing silly fossil fuel supporting talking points here and looking silly. Whatevs.

Typical of our old pal Wingnut Steve to drop in a red herring, like "predict with certainty future weather conditions."

Naturally, our resident Wingnut fails to point to a single study by the IPCC, NOAA or other reputable scientific organization that so much as mentions absolute "certainty" as to future weather projections.

Wingnut Steve has simply demonstrated, again, a profound ignorance of scientific theory and the scientific method.

When scientists provide a tornado warning, they are not saying that a tornado will strike a given structure, like your house. Those warnings are provided as an alert that "indicates that residents should take immediate precautions."

In such circumstances, it is quite possible that the storm will not strike your house, but anyone who ignores the warning does so at his or her peril.

Scientific projections, like the one reflected by the graph in Brad's comment @22, are not designed to show what the precise temperature will be on a given future date. It is a "projection" of the likely rise in temperatures based upon a multitude of variables, most especially the direct correlation between the sharp rise in the levels of atmospheric CO2 and and the exponential sharp rise in global temperatures.

I always find it funny that conservatives will argue the predictability of the climate or weather but have no problem using metrics of one form or another to predict the economy. If you want something that is mostly unpredictable (except that it will change), try predicting the stock market. Maybe the conservatives would take more interest in the climate if there was a Carbon index, or a global temperature index, that can have it's own set of futures or derivatives.

" established bradblog dogma "
" a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization"

My bad. And I thought that this was a political pundit's ( and sometime researcher after suppressed truth ) podium rather than a mere practitioner of political correctness as established by partisan politics and supposition.

The GOP at least have some excuse for being close minded : a report to the Senate laying out the scare as a chimera.

'The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.'
http://www.middlebury.ne...d/global-warming-01.html
( Such modeling runs up against load capacity constraints for data handling systems as well as a lack of accuracy in measurement, shortage of data points on a water planet { though 6000 sounds impressive...fudged though they are known to be...and caloric capacity of water in the oceans is not about to be calculated either } and shortage of time when reports have been made. )

Now I am well aware of the trend to personally denigrate - possibly in some cases correctly, though supposition is rampant - dissent as uniformed/misinformed blather operating in a moral vacuum and politically motivated...http://ideonexus.com/2007/12/24/senate-report-debunks-consensus-on-global-warming/...but such tricks include the analysis of their own and opposing partiality as political in nature...not questions of dispassionate fact.
I like this part in particular. " The IPCC Report’s scientists and reviewers were all tasked with figuring it out, and they engaged in scientific inquiry to best articulate the truth." Close. They were tasked with scientific inquiry to show the supposition upon which the international political panel was founded was plausible ( see their website mission statement ) : backwards to honest inquiry. And even in that article, a following comment by kstafford is one laying out his reluctance to get his exercise 'jumping to conclusions'...or being railroaded into them either.

BTW I have been collecting articles for years where people are properly mystified how such a load has staying power over decades - preceding and reversing even the convictions of the founder ( Lamb ) of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit itself. JoNova and WUWT - for example - are not worth considering for someone whose personal meme is "I am right and there is no way I will entertain representation that I have been snowed."
oldephartte(intraining) aka opit

All right, that's it, Smedley Butler is back....maybe i started all this mayhem, but please allow me to settle the waters with some goodnatured avuncular counsel....all you bozos clinging to a GOP fantasy planet, GO LIVE in your fucked up trickle down Fox hole deregulated toxic waste subminimum wage school voucher shithole of an America, and me and Brad and Ernie and Dredd and all the rest of US will wave at you from across the river...from OUR America, where people are happy and healthy and productive and friendly....your world blows, big time....you'll see it when you finally wake up....

Farnham and Steve(when was he let back in?)--

Paying attention to actual reality is so not your strong suits.

Everyone projects, but some of us have at least some little awareness of our own machinations and a capacity for self-reflection that acknowledges such. You guys seem to be(as Mark Crispin Miller put it so brilliantly in "Cruel and Unusual") in a projectionist movement whose degree of projection and lack of understanding of same are off chart.

You throw out so much horseshit it's hard to know where to start shoveling and frankly I've lost interest in trying. It appears to be a futile gesture trying to reason with people like yourselves who seem to lack the ability to acknowledge valid opposing points of view and/or the facts that support them.

But I would like to point out one of Steve's basic recurring lies--that all we ever do around here is mindlessly agree with Brad.

Here is a link to Brad's most recent post(just a few days before this one) on climate. https://bradblog.com/?p=11043

In the comment section, anyone with a capacity to read and willing to take the time to engage that capacity will notice that I did not understand some of the basic contentions of the post. I said so and took exception to what Brad was saying cuz as I read it all, it wasn't making sense to me. This is simple example of EXACTLY the opposite of what Steve claims again and again to be the case here.

I, loyal BradBlog citizen, David Lasagna, daring to question our fearless leader. There was quite an extended back and forth between me, Brad, and Ernie. Anyone bothering to read it should be able to easily determine that at no point did I roll over and offer uncritical obeisance for the sake and joy of being an unthinking acolyte. I did almost give up at one point but even then I was not agreeing. Finally clarification was reached.

So there it is right there in a most recent post, one of Brad's followers and friends doing exactly what Steve claims we never do.

J'accuse.

Sad, but telling, that John Farnham @25 would fall back upon a phrase like "political correctness" in a forum in which the topic involves global climate change.

The poor deluded fool has been so blinded by the Right that he doesn't understand the difference between "politics" and "science."

Concerning those who say human activity is not affecting climate change I often wonder what, if anything, it would take for them to admit/consider error and acknowledge what the world's scientific community does. You know, would there be ANY degree of unprecedented weather events that could sway them to consider a different way of thinking about it, a different belief system? Or is their position/belief an unassailable, irremediable one carved into the granite of their ideology?

Cuz if they can't ever imagine ANYTHING that would ever change their mind, affect their worldview, what would ever be the point in trying to engage them in meaningful dialogue? It'd just be a forever waste of time.

John Farnham -

Really. This is pretty simple. Do you have evidence to show that any of the science we have reported is inaccurate? If so, please point to the science that shows the previously reported science is wrong.

That's the nice thing about the scientific method, it's both provable and disprovable. So, if you've got something to disprove the science, all you need to do is cite it.

All that other nonsense you offered? It's exactly that. Hope you understand. We question everything here, including science when it is bad and there is evidence to show that it is wrong. (Sometimes it certainly is --- though, more often, it's bad reporting on good science that proves to be the culprit.) We like facts here. And we're always open to those who offer them, particularly in an independently verifiable way.

Hope that makes sense, and helps you understand why nobody but fellow dupes would be moved by your evidence-free (and already debunked by science) assertions made to date here. I appreciate that you believe you know what you're talking about. But that's a far cry from being able to demonstrate it. No, citing opinion pieces and discredited clown Sen. James Inhofe --- whose knowledge of science includes what he's been told by fossil fuel dupe and non-scientist Mark Morano (who used to work for Limbaugh before I spent about 3 hours on air with him, helping him look silly) or discredited fossil fuel funded liar Willie Soon or using old information from Koch Brothers-funded Richard Muller who has since looked at the science and admitted he "had it wrong" --- doesn't actually count as science.

Again, it's easy: What science do you have to demonstrate that the science reported here is wrong or inaccurately reported? If you can't answer that question, you might try selling your beliefs elsewhere, to other folks who have lower standards.

Jon Stewart in his trenchant and hilarious way had a most brilliant deconstruction Wednesday night of the MO of "conservatives" like John Farnham and Wingnut Steve. His analysis starts at about the 2:50 mark, then goes to the end of the segment.

http://thedailyshow.cc.c.../9up6u7/better-call-foul

Dave Lasagna #31 'That's the nice thing about the scientific method, it's both provable and disprovable" Bingo. Whereas citing graphs and projections which cannot be shown to reflect causality may be neat as all get out...but a worthless diversion all the same.
You know what really sucks ? Talking to people so busy analyzing flaws of attitude that they neglect the crux of the problem i.e. nowhere is it shown that CO2 drives climate change anyhow.
Apparently I have some backup reading to catch up on. Hopefully it is more illuminating than what has happened so far.
I am not flogging pollution BTW. What happens to our water is a scandal of the first magnitude - and I resent the waste of time chasing an old wives' tale that climate was stable until we trashed it , now graduated to promoted scientism of the day.

John Farnham @32 wrote:

..graphs and projections which cannot be shown to reflect causality...

and:

Apparently I have some backup reading to catch up on.

I am going to assume that you were sincere when you offered the second of those two remarks. So I'll try to help with your enlightenment.

While the bi-weekly Green News Report contains a vast repository of the materials that would be useful for you to read, I'd suggest that you start with the Richard Muller, Ph.D. video Brad made available to all in the body of this article.

If you pay careful attention, you will see the error in your assumption that graphs cannot be used to show causality.

The critical feature entails the concession by Muller, a former Koch Industries-funded climate skeptic, that there is a direct correlation between the precipitous rise in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily the result of human activities--the burning of fossil fuels.

That correlation, along with the debunking of alternative explanations, like "Willie" Soon's scientifically discredited sun spot theory, is what led Muller to accept the reality of human-induced climate change.

Thus, contrary to your mistaken belief, it has indeed been "shown that CO2 [a greenhouse gas] drives climate change."

See, Greenhouse gas effect.

John Farnham @32--

You're playing bingo with yourself.

And demonstrating exactly what Jon Stewart points out in that right-on piece.

You deal with ZERO of the evidence presented to you. You do not respond to reasonable questions that in a normal give and take would require response, like, any evidence, please?. Your primary complaint is how you're being mistreated(code for-- nobody here is willing to buy into your long discredited misinformation cuz we(unlike you) have been doing our homework), while you cavalierly mistreat a critical scientific truth as if it doesn't exist.

And somehow, in your world, YOU'RE the aggrieved party.