Heheh...

Excellent.

Let's sing it. Seriously.

I was listening to the Woodstock album today. (Naw, I wasn't there, but I shoulda' been. Just a bit young and didn't know any older adventurous friends to go with.)

I was struck by a couple things:

1) how unashamedly unapologetic the anti-Vietnam war protesters were and how many anti-war songs there were that became, if not exactly mainstream, very well known.

2) The exuberance and energy that came through in the music, regardless of what it was about.

Can't we find that energy and tap into it for the sake of the planet?

Sing it!

My favorite is the ripping up a $20 in exchange for a $5. Makes perfect sense...er...

That guy is hilarious!

Lora:

You can get the Woodstock movie on Itunes and it is way better then the version that was played in theaters in the 70's.

It is also funny that we think that voting on anything from pure holy paper to hackable electronic voting machines will change the temperature of the water either way.

That myth looks silly when one fathoms the way oil showed up in our Twinkies, our Twinkie defenses, and just about everything else we call ours.

Thanks Larry,

I might just check it out.

Simply click the "YouTube" icon to witness the childish way this guy reacts to contradictory information. Always a dead giveaway.

Brad doesn't fare much better than this guy.

Check out the discussion in this post:

https://bradblog.com/?p=9792

So, InterceptMedia, do you have anything of substance to add, or is it that you simply don't understand the distinction between sarcasm and "childish" behavior?

I think, Mr. Canning, your having trouble recognizing when sarcasm becomes childish behavior.

I don't think you are interested in the CLOUD/CERN studies, or NASA's recent study about CO2, or what's important about the 2nd batch of emails, or what the dissenting climatologists are saying, or what actual satellite readings of global temperatures indicate, or what the most accurate meteorologists look at for their predictions, or what the actual percentage of manmade CO2 is supposed to be affecting global temperatures, or the growing ice in Antarctica, or how the carbon orthodoxy keeps their data away from public scrutiny... I could go on, but the bottom line is, people have to learn to look at the conflicting data themselves instead of relying on so-called experts to tell them how to think. Thought that was Rush Limbaugh's job.

Ahh, now I see where you're coming from InterceptMedia.

If you'd been around in 1492, you would have denied claims that the earth was a sphere because of the "conflicting data" advanced by the flat Earthers.

Try reading James Hanson, Storms Of My Grandchildren: The Truth About The Climate Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To Save Humanity, after which you can return to this site and engage in a scientific-based discussion of the reality of global climate change.

"Flat Earthers"...wasn't that Obama's talking point?

So when I finish pissing away my time reading James Hanson's "Truth About the Climate Catastrophe", is that when you are going to actually address anything in my last reply? Only "Flat Earthers" understand the percentage of human produced CO2 contributing to "global warming"? "Flat Earthers" conducted the CLOUD/CERN studies? "Flat Earthers" are the sole group of people admitting no significant warming in the last 15 years? Now the MET Office are "Flat Earthers"? Only "Flat Earthers" acknowledge the growth of Antartic Ice? Only "Flat Earthers" acknowledge pre-industrial warming periods?

1492, the time when one scientific position prevailed over a minority of people who had it right. They knew the Earth was round in shape.

2013, a time when one scientific* position has prevailed over a minority of people who have it right. They know that catastrophic CO2 driven global warming is derived politically, not through clean science.

Seriously, this is what conversations with the carbon orthodoxy looks like. Someone who obviously defers to so-called experts or the IPCC reports, but never reveals any sort of independent investigation of dissenting opinions.

*Scientific if you believe it's O.K. to refuse peer review of dissenting studies, and you believe that source data for all these computer models are exempt from public scrutiny.

InterceptMedia said @ 11:

Seriously, this is what conversations with the carbon orthodoxy looks like.

And this is what conversations with denialists look like. Whether they truly believe the denialism, as I believe, in good faith, that you do, or whether they know better and spout the same long-ago debunked nonsense.

Just about every point you mention above has been either spoken to or debunked. For example, the old "no significant warming in the last 15 years" chestnut has been disabused many times. Here's a swell place to start: http://www.skepticalscie...-warming-in-16-years.htm As you'll see in the articles cited at that link, and as has been explained many times over, the theory you offer there does not include ocean temps, which makes up the bulk of heat retained across the globe. Moreover, to make the claim you did, one must first remove warming influences of El Ninos and La Ninas (which may be exacerbated themselves by global warming) and even then the 10 warmest years on record, in the history of the planet, occurred over the past 13 years.

Yes, this decade has been warmer than the one before it. Last decade was warmer than the one before it, and so on. But read the link above for many more details and citations on the science involved.

As to "the growth of Antarctic Ice", you can check your bad science on that claim here: http://www.skepticalscie...tarctica-gaining-ice.htm

(Note, I'm pointing you to SkepticalScience.com in both instances because a) they cite many different sources for the evidence they offer, no need to rely on just one in any case and b) they offer basic, intermediate and advanced explanations of the science in question in most cases, which you can choose to review as you see fit.)

I could continue on each of your assertions above, but it's not particularly worth it, since it seems you ascribe to the "global warming is a hoax orthodoxy". That's fine, but it's exhausting dealing with you guys all the time. So many myths, so long ago proven to be unsupported, so little time to speak to all of those who push them anyway.

BTW, you may call me whatever names you like in responding to me, but I did my best, in that previous thread, to take your responses seriously, and offered serious thoughts in return, even though you began the conversation there by breaking one of the very few rules we have for commenting here, namely, the first one. I ignored that out of respect for you, but it seems that respect is not particularly reciprocal here, sadly. I'm hoping you can do better as we move forward, even under your pseudonym.

The term "flat Earther" is apropos those who insist that "global warming is a hoax."

In both instances, the individuals who cling to such misconceptions, do so despite rather than because of the level of scientific evidence that reveals how out of touch they are with reality.

Brad is right. Whether one deals with those who, for pay, cling to climate science denial because they are funded by the carbon-based industries or with those who have been taken in by the pseudo-science the paid-for "skeptics" (whom you describe as "independent" dissenting experts) advance, having to rebut such nonsense over-and-over again is "exhausting" and, I might add, in many cases unproductive, given how impervious so many "flat Earthers" are to scientific evidence.

I've directed you to one outstanding, scientific source in the work of Dr. James Hanson. Brad has furnished you with a link to a wealth of material that debunks every myth you've probably read about; and no doubt, many more that you've yet to read.

Read SkepticalScience.com and Hansen if you so desire. Don't read them if you remain comfortable in your ill-informed beliefs. That's your prerogative.

Oh, and here’s one more, InterceptMedia.

On the topic of what you call an independent climate science skeptic but which others refer to as a paid-for denialist, consider the “conversion” of Richard A. Muller, who was funded by the Koch brothers until he reported in The New York Times that climate-change is real.

One of the things I wonder about climate change deniers is--can't they see/feel it first hand? There is the increasingly weird weather happening in so many places. But then there are also other simple first hand observable changes.

I am currently in Boston where every night I empty the dehumidifier in the basement. Besides that one can feel how uncommonly humid it has been for the last few weeks, I do not recall ever having to empty that thing at any kind of rate like that.

David Lasagna @15 wrote:

No, David. They can't. That's the whole point in Lee Camp's parody of Al Gore boiling frog example in How to Boil a Human.

I love this term "denialist", because it immediately reveals an inherently dishonest approach. What I am denying is that human induced CO2 has a significant effect on warming trends. "Denialist" has always been a cheap tool aimed at lumping those who don't believe there was a warming trend at all in the 20th century with those who question catastrophic anthropogenic global warming(CAGW).

From 2011 to date, the lack of warming trend has been reported by mainstream media outlets in an apologetic, contradictory fashion. Sometimes they were completely confusing as they bent over backwards reaffirming CAGW. They did this despite the article's original aim at attempting to account for the lack of a warming trend.

So skeptical science (ironically named) states that "it is unsurprising that we have seen a reduced rate of warming over the past 16 years." That's not what I've been watching since 2007.

The site also claims that the "media obsession with short term trends has focussed(sic) attention on the past 15-16 years." This should set off everybody's bullshit detector. One only needs to set up Google alerts for Global Warming and Climate change to see which side overwhelmingly leans on short-term trends. Even here I'm being asked "can't you feel it?"

Have you been watching the Met Office at all? Their backpedalling is comedy gold, like Faulty Towers. By 2017, you may be looking at two decades without an appreciable warming trend. People were told they would never see snow in the near future.

Brad's source is from one website (www.skepticalscience.com) because it has a variety of sources, right? Great. I see an excellent narrative and a historic look at similar deceptions by Mike Rivero. I don't agree with everything this guy says, but I believe this work needs attention, especially for those who insist that those skeptical about CAGW have no foundation.

The first on their list "explaining" the cooling trend is China's sulfur emissions.

I began collecting articles over this issue since 2007, after observing the initial reactions to the first set of Climate-gate emails. I remember seeing the 2011 article about China and their sulfur emissions. I linked to it right away because it was hilarious. If you recall, it took a long time for mainstream media to report the observation that there has been no appreciable cooling in the last 10 (actually started in '98) years.

Observe the apologetic tone of the article and how it takes great pains to reaffirm global warming despite what's mentioned in the title. This was one of the first mainstream articles to acknowledge the lack of warming. But not without coming up with an excuse - China's sulfur emissions! But China was not enough to account for the lack of warming.

We were watching a huge scramble amongst those pushing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming

This gives you a sense of the problems they were having with "El Niños" and La Niñas" More on oceans, later.

So then came the next excuse. I was waiting patiently.

Volcanoes! After all, China's SO2 emissions weren't enough, but volcanoes spit SO2!

The problem with this excuse is that volcanoes were often blamed for global warming, especially with CO2 emissions in the oceans. Volcanoes are a huge contribution of CO2.

Next, aerosols themselves are blamed for global cooling. You see, nobody was using aerosols in the 90's. The first sentence from this article:

Aerosol particles, including soot and sulfur dioxide from burning fossil fuels, essentially mask the effects of greenhouse gases and are at the heart of the biggest uncertainty in climate change prediction.

That's right. This article, reposted numerous times by the CAGW crowd in August of 2011, said that the burning of fossil fuels masks the effects of greenhouse gases.

Then the next article from the ever apologetic Reuters:

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans

Check this statement out:

"The temperatures were still high --- the decade between 2000 and 2010 was Earth's warmest in more than a century --- but the single-year mark for warmest global temperature was stuck at 1998, until 2010 matched it."

We are talking about a lack of warming trend since 1998. Notice how we get arguments placing emphasis on how hot things currently are to avoid dealing with the lack of warming trend (the lack of catastrophic global warming that was supposed to leave us without snow)?

In Reuter's ocean article:

"Temperatures would stabilize before rising. During these periods, the extra heat moved into deep ocean water due to changes in ocean circulation, the scientists said."

Here is an excellent interview that occurred in 2012 with Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls. I'm linking to this particular exchange because it provides great coverage of oceans, the Arctic, Antarctica, mountain ranges, glaciers, etc.

I don't believe it's bad science to bring up the Antarctic ice, even if there has been a change in the distribution of ice on land compared to the sea. -Especially with all that heat that's supposed to be contained within the ocean (part of skeptical science's rationale for the 'unsurprising' lack of warming) .

There is a revisionist quality to the ironically named "skepticalscience.com". I've been using "Google Alert" to see the latest exchanges over climate change and global warming for years. I 've been lapse after giving up collecting articles, but I'm truly grateful for being shown this site.

I believe it's important to follow the big squirming gross misconception of CAGW, especially while watching politicians, Monsanto, and the security complex jockey into position to exploit this slowly diminishing fear.

You say I ascribe to the "global warming is a hoax orthodoxy". Sorry, but there is no equivalency to the way the CAGW crowd acts towards dissent. A good rule of thumb is to find out which side is hiding their data? Which side uses terms like "denialist"? Which side punishes dissenting scientists? Which side subverts the peer review process?

Who's flogging the BBC to get them to censor dissenting scientists? From Ernest's "flat earthers" to co-opting the term orthodoxy, such labels are only effective when they are earned. For example, the orthodoxy in action:

Here is one I wrote.
Environmental Advocates Use Racism to Dismiss Global Warming Skeptics

David Bellamy would know what I mean about earning the title.

BBC shunned me for denying climate change

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof.

I'm sure those who were flat earth skeptics encountered a great deal of backlash similar to today's CAGW skeptic. At the time, "Round Earthers" were the minority dissenting opinion shunned by the establishment declaring a "consensus". And, despite the 97% concensus repeated ad nauseum today, some scientists took a genuine look at CAGW and disagree.

You would definitely have an opportunity to learn about a climate scientist (funded by Koch) change his mind in favor of CAGW. Interesting how Muller is brought up without any mention of what Judith Curry observed concerning his study.

Watch how much press is devoted to feeble-minded Koch shills like Muller paraded out with such fanfare.  Forget the recent defectors that went the other direction: Lindzen, Lovelock and Vahrenholdt. No spot for them on "Democracy Now!"

So I read Brad's rule number 1 for commenting. "Pick a user name and stick with it. Do not post under multiple identities."

O.K. here are the two posts that involved discussion threads under my previous login, J.T. Waldron:

The Global Warming Conspiracy

Heartland Institute New Ad Campaign Associates Climate Science Advocates With Serial Killers

Then I recall that I wanted to post again in the following article, but couldn't get through with "J.T. Waldron":

'Think Progress' Smears BRAD BLOG Coverage of Voting Machine Concerns as 'Conspiracy Theory'

I made a comment #35 as InterceptMedia. Then I made the following request on comment #37:

By the way, Brad. The name and email I used for previous comments here have repeatedly failed the character test today when placing this comment. Switched to another name and email and voila! Up it goes. Can you check this and maybe let my name/email pass through the comments section on your site again?
Thanks.

The link to my site identifies who I am. Never a mystery, but a violation of the rules. Were my comments in the other two global warming articles enough to get me banned? I doubt it. But, since the other login worked, I continued with that one, so it's my bad for not checking to see if I can login with my previous ID.
Thanks for providing me with this opportunity to test my recollections and collections to understand how the global warming narrative has changed and is reflected by the likes of skepticalscience.com. It's a fairly dubious proposition that everything presented has been spoken to or debunked. Repackaged, maybe...

Correction:

The first on their list "explaining" the cooling trend is China's sulfur emissions.

Should read:

Back to skepticalscience.com

The first on their list "explaining" the cooling trend is China's sulfur emissions.

Intercept--

I try to be open to opposing points of view. I clicked on your first link. The touchstone of Mike Rivero's piece is the fake scandal of climategate.

"Climategate" has been thoroughly debunked. There is no scandal there. Here's Peter Sinclair's deconstruction.
http://climatecrocks.com...inding-hide-the-decline/

You haven't dealt with the thorough refutation of your basic premise in the slightest.

But you do use an awful lot of words in not doing so.

Lasagna,

I'm not sure if you are really paying attention to this issue.

If you were, you probably wouldn't be sending me a link to video "refuting" climate gate seven months before the second batch of emails were released.

By the way, Beck and Fox news are not credible sources. Michael Mann has been fighting public release of his data in the courts and I've already addressed feeble-minded, Koch-Funded Muller. Banks love CAGW.

Whomever hacked these emails was very smart. Once the first batch was launched, East Anglia invested in a PRfirm to sway public opinion (you see, science wasn't enough). They pulled all the stops to tell people not to believe what they were reading. Using the 3rd Party PR technique, they set up "blue ribbon panels" three times to convince the public that the emails were taken out of context. They confused enough people about doctoring data, but were unable to successfully refute the corruption of the peer review process.

Actually it was the treatment of dissent and the reaction to the first batch of emails that started rousing my suspicion of CAGW.

Then blam! The second batch of emails. They put to bed the suggestion that the first batch of emails were taken out of context. You don't hear too much about that 2nd batch because the CAGW shot their wad over the first batch. All they can do is pretend the 2nd release doesn't exist. I have referenced the 2nd batch of emails in a link in my last post.

Yet you say, "You haven't dealt with the thorough refutation of your basic premise in the slightest."

I know it's inconvenient to take the time to look more closely at this issue but its important to do so as this issue is distracting from real ecological disasters like Fukushima, BP and fracking.

InterceptMedia, you seem to be making the mistake of confusing media reports with primary scientific literature.

SkepticalScience.com is not run by journalists but actual climate scientists with the relevant education and expertise to evaluate the scientific evidence. Their database attempts to collect and explain, in accessible terms, the latest primary scientific literature on the incredibly complex interacting geophysical systems at work on this planet --- including the uncertainties. If you have the relevant education and expertise and have gathered field data that overturns basic physics and chemistry, you should submit your results to the appropriate scientific bodies for publication.

News stories are not science, but attempts to explain it (with mixed success) that do not necessarily accurately represent the nuances of the scientific evidence being studied.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't be surprised that no one here finds your opinions or arguments very convincing. That's why we have science.

This is an excellent example of a meteorology professor (not a climate scientist) who has taken the time to address the opinions of folks who really don't know what they're talking about:

Global Warming Twitter Drive-By Shooting: Whew! Just Blanks (As Always)

It highlights how having the relevant education and training is really important to understanding the nuances of the scientific evidence.

InterceptMedia -

So much disinfo, so little time (or interest) in responding to it all. Sad part is, I know you actually mean well, unlike most of the folks you parrot who are laughing and laughing at how you're helping them.

So, just one for now. You said...

Michael Mann has been fighting public release of his data in the courts and I've already addressed feeble-minded, Koch-Funded Muller. Banks love CAGW.

Uh, no. Michael Mann is fighting against the public release of HIS PRIVATE EMAILS, which (denier, homophobe, misogynist, and paid-off corrupt) VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli believes he has a right to read and release publicly, because they were written from Mann's University of VA email account.

And it's fun that Muller is "feeble" minded, as you see it, because one of his fellow scientists disagrees with him, so, of course, you choose to go with her instead of the thousands who agree with Muller. Also fun that you think saying "Banks love CAGW" is persuasive of...something? Here's one: Insurance companies hate CAGW. So, I guess we're even now?

Oh, and can't help it, just one more. You said:

People were told they would never see snow in the near future.

Really? What scientist ever said that? Where? What peer reviewed paper? When? Or you're just playing the happy patsy again? A specific answer appreciated (And please try to avoid replying with a novel and 50 links...just one will do for now. Thanks!)

Intercept @20

You said--

I'm not sure if you are really paying attention to this issue.

Any chance there are any mirrors where you are currently residing?

Cuccinelli claimed that Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws in relation to research grants. After the first batch of emails and all the activity surrounding the first batch of emails, I don't believe that's a stretch. Cucc was looking for more than just emails:

"The university was instructed to produce documents dating from January 1999 to the present, including all emailed or written correspondence from, to or relating to Mann and 39 named climate scientists as well as research assistants, secretaries and administrative staff, anything connected with applications for the grants or payment of the grants, and all "documents, drafts, things or data" generated in carrying out the grant assisted research. They also required all "computer algorithms, programs, source code or the like" created or edited by Mann and stored by the university. Where documents were no longer held by the university, the CID required details of who had destroyed or removed them, and their authority for doing so...

Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Civil Investigative Demand CID No. 2-MM, issued 23 April 2010"

I'm looking at the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling over the Attorney General's records request from the University of Virginia. Rather than let the AG get the data, they basically ruled that state agencies do not have to provide state-owned property to state investigators looking into potential fraud involving government funds. That's a pretty horrific outcome on behalf of Mann, who could have simply released the data and put to bed public scrutiny of himself once and for all.

Would the outcome have been different if it weren't this politically ambitious twit of an AG applying selective justice (especially with election fraud) to please his base? In this case, probably not.

Maybe I'm wordy but brevity can sure be misleading, sometimes.

In my previous post, I should have placed emphasis on the imbalance of coverage between Muller and the three mentioned dissenting meteorologists who came out against CAGW. I call him feeble minded because that was my firt impression watching the "Democracy Now" interview. It's in my previous post.

I'll move to address the points made by Doyen. If there is any impression left with this exchange, it's to encourage people to think for themselves instead of relying on so-called experts. Critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and media literacy are not owned by the "experts". There are a couple books that do a great job addressing this by the Center for Media and Democracy called "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" and "Trust Us, We're Experts". (Yes I'm referring to a group that follows PR, accept when its employed by East Anglia). When the media presents something so inaccurate that it has missed enough of the so-called "nuances" of scientific evidence, they make a retraction. I am amused that you suggest that I should submit my "results" to the appropriate scientific bodies for publication. You have the IPCC cherry picking studies, the corruption of the peer review process, and dissenting scientist ostracized and ignored. CAGW is simply a portion of various world events I've been following but if I were a scientist attempting clean science in this arena, I wouldn't have much luck. Check references for CLOUD/CERN studies.

One more point. Do you think the "nuances of the scientific evidence" give us statements about how the burning of fossil fuels mask global warming?

How about the idea that extra heat has moved into deep ocean waters and will spell big trouble in the future? Doesn't that rub against some of the gradeschool or middle school science taught to most of us? Thermodynamics? The dissipation of heat? The movement of warm molecules to cool molecules?

I don't think recompiling the various studies aimed at explaining the lack of a warming trend affords skepticalscience.com much positive notoriety.

Lasagna,

"'I'm not sure if you are really paying attention to this issue.'

Any chance there are any mirrors where you are currently residing?"

How about checking the links and letting me know?

Back to snow. Please read the links in my previous posts, they already cover this point.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

How about some Al Gore action, too.

Gore Reports Snow and Ice Across the World Vanishing Quickly

Good night!

Intercept,

I am disinclined to look at more of your links because you never dealt in any substantive way with my initial criticism of your first link which seems to be a primary source of your anti-science belief system here.

Intercept Media, it's apparently a waste of time to attempt to engage you on the scientific evidence. Sorry, but "gradeschool or middle school" science class is not on a par with post-doctoral education. I simply do not have the time to go through your comments and debunk such misinformation and confusion line by line.

That's why we have directed you to SkepticalScience.com, where you will get the full debunking of your erroneous assumptions, with actual scientific evidence. It is not "critical thinking" when you seek out only the "evidence" that supports your preconceived notions, choose to believe only those sources that agree with you, and then dismiss the vast body of peer-reviewed work demonstrating otherwise. That's called confirmation bias. Politicians and media outlets are no substitute for primary scientific literature compiled by actual scientists.

Back to Doyen:

How ironic that you name the precise characteristics of the CAGW crowd cherry-picking evidence that only supports CAGW as demonstrated in how they corrupted the peer review process. Didn't I say that that was the crap that brought my suspicion in the first place?

Looking at the establishment's take on aspartame, Vioxx, statins, mercury, Coreexit dispersants, Fukushima radiation and MSG (not to mention WTC demos), I've seen a very similar deceptive shuffle in the process (which I've been watching) of getting to the bottom of CAGW. I've been calling it as I've been seeing it and, at the same time, preserving what I've observed.

The idea that basic scientific laws were introduced in the early stages of the educational process doesn't mean it's O.K. to dismiss them through so-called complex scientific nuances.

You are continuing to lean on that ironically named "skepticalscience.com" after I had already quoted two very deceptive statements made by that same site. Why not address these issues in a substantive manner?

Oh, that's right. Simply don't have the time. This is one of the reasons why I've become more skeptical of the CAGW position. Every encounter I've had is met with chest-thumping assurances that CAGW is real all while appealing to the same authorities. For people to be so definitive I would expect a great deal of time and scrutiny over the concept. All I see are excuses and a referrals to a site aimed at repackaging these same excuses with an air of legitimacy. It's just not good enough. CAGW proponents are better served by cleaning up the science.

Lasagna:

"I am disinclined to look at more of your links because you never dealt in any substantive way with my initial criticism of your first link which seems to be a primary source of your anti-science belief system here."

Disinclined might be one word for it. Are you looking at the same thread? 2nd batch of emails? Hello?