The degree of ignorance (ignoring knowledge) in this country is unbounded.

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

What can't the billionaire energy barons pay their bought-and-paid-for political stooges to say? Probably nothing.

Brad: How unfair is it that you and Peter Sinclair use "facts" to destroy climate science denial fantasies?

What's next on your science-based agenda? Challenging the bible-based nonsense espoused by The Creation Museum?

Well, he said "the same temperature" but I am sure he MEANT "the same [within a margin of error of 150 Degrees Farenheit]". Relative to a supernova, temperature differences on earth and mars might seem small...

We could perhaps give Sen. Smith of KY the benefit of the doubt and allow that he misspoke in saying Earth and Mars have the same temperature, rather than saying (truthfully or not) that they are experiencing the same rising temperature trend. But the simple-minded reasoning he applies after that completely negates the idea he misspoke in any meaningful way, and makes it clear he is just woefully misinformed, and/or blowing smoke.

One more "and/or" Greg J @5.

As in and/or dumb as a rock.

Has anyone here looked this resource?

http://www.populartechnology.net/

I bring it up because Skeptical Science is mentioned in the article and pop tech has some interesting things to say about that site.

Also, it links to many peer reviewed studies which may support a skeptical POV on AGW.

I wholeheartedly agree that this KY Senator is an unbelievable moron.

Re SH @7.

I'd be cautious about anything posted at PopularTechnology.net

See, e.g., PopularTechnology.net is a denier website.

Thanks for the link.

I have to admit that throwing around the word denier irks me. It is juvenile. If the record is so compelling that only people who are completely delusional could think otherwise, then why not take the high road instead of insulting people?

As for people who are purposefully misleading others, there are ways to counter their influence without the third grade mentality.

In any case, what think you of the papers the site links to? Do they warrant any consideration or should we ignore them and just focus on the evidence entirely supportive of AGW?

SH -

Why is the word "denier" juvenile and insulting? If one denies the massive body of science about climate change, and says it is not happening, as scientists (and science) say it is, and is not caused by man, as scientists (and science) say it is, why should they not be described as denying the science of climate change?

As to this:

In any case, what think you of the papers the site links to?

What "papers"? The site, apparently created and run by a computer engineer (not a climate scientist) links to many things. Can you be more specific about the papers you are citing?

Do they warrant any consideration or should we ignore them and just focus on the evidence entirely supportive of AGW?

Without citing what papers you are talking about, there is no way to answer that question. But of nearly 11,000 peer-reviewed studies on climate that were published in 2013 offering an opinion on global warming, only 2 said it was either not happening, or it was not due to man. Are those the papers you're talking about? Any peer-reviewed science warrants "consideration". But very little actual science is not "supportive of AGW".

Even Koch-funded Richard Muller, once a skeptic, found that to be the case, as I'm sure you know, right?

@Ernest A. Canning

IPKA is a blog for an admitted Internet stalker that was started after he was banned from the Ron Paul forums for being, "a useless, annoying troll".

"Andrew can shut up if he wishes not to be ...followed or stalked." – Bud [IPKA]

"I'm a real life stalker too, you just think I'm an internet stalker because you only see my online." – Bud [IPKA]

"…can't stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you'll be followed." – Bud [IPKA]

"Bud" is a sockpuppet for "WaltM" and his blog IPKA. "WaltM" [IPKA] was so much of a lunatic he was banned from the Ron Paul forums.

"The guy [WaltM] is a useless, annoying troll, whether he realizes it or not." - Ron Paul Forums

He has had a problem with me after I suggested he get a lobotomy.

SH -

Huh. Here's what PopTech says on their page titled "The Truth about Skeptical Science".

Under a huge photoshopped picture of one of Skepitcal Science's founders dressed as a Nazi (which the page describes as him "apparently pretending" to be one - though the link they offer to a well known denier site supplies no such evidence), PopTech calls SkepticalScience.com "a climate alarmist website...moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position". They describe that as "abuse" as well, and say the site is "not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions".

So, that's the site which you are recommending while arguing that describing those who deny climate science as "deniers" is "juvenile" and "insulting"? Seriously?

@Brad Friedman,

The Photoshopped Nazi pictures were discovered on their hidden forums when they carelessly left the image directory accessible to the Internet.

Everything stated in the piece is correct. Including Cook's own words,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

http://web.archive.org/w...science.com/page.php?p=3

There is much, much more to read in the Updates as well. You get to see how they formed their own "crusher crews" to silence dissent online,

http://www.populartechno...ence-drown-them-out.html

Poptech said @ 13:

The Photoshopped Nazi pictures were discovered on their hidden forums when they carelessly left the image directory accessible to the Internet.

Yes. I know. I read the article you linked to when you incorrectly asserted that John Cook was "apparently pretending" to be a Nazi, based on a Photoshopped picture that Anthony Watts found on their server.

Everything stated in the piece is correct.

If you believe that assertion was "correct", it's little wonder you appear to have trouble determining what actually constitutes evidence and proof and other sciency stuff like that.

Beyond that, the point was in response to SH describing the use of the word "denier" to describe those who deny climate science as "juvenile" and "insulting", while citing your site as, presumably, neither juvenile nor insulting. One click to one page at your place found you posting a fake photo of someone you disagree with as a Nazi, making a false assertion about him "apparently pretending" to be one, and describing thousands of climate scientists from across the globe as "extremist" and "alarmist", etc.

That kinda seems both "juvenile" and "insulting", if you ask me. So I pointed it out to SH. But thanks for playing. And good luck with calling those who disagree with you because they are either scientists or believe in science "Nazis". Smart take!

SH @9 writes:

I have to admit that throwing around the word denier irks me. It is juvenile.

There is nothing "juvenile" about the word "denier."

The ipka website that the pseudo-scientific Poptech summarily dismisses as an "Internet stalker" provides an excellent distinction between a skeptic and a climate science "denier."

A "skeptic" of a scientific theory "demands to be convinced" by supporting scientific evidence. A "denier" will refuse to accept the validity of a scientific theory irrespective of the status of the evidence to support it.

While we are on the topic of the difference between healthy, "scientific skepticism" and the bad faith that lies beneath "denial," it is important to understand the definition of "scientific theory."

The pseudo-scientific Poptech has attempted to reduce the solid science that forms the basis for the "scientific theory" of global climate change to unsubstantiated fantasy precisely because he is engaged in bad faith "denial." That is why it is appropriate to describe his website as a "denier website."

If the temperature ranges, atmospheric composition, etc. on Mars are so different than that found on Earth, then please explain how Bugs Bunny was able to defeat his Martian combatant so easily while on the red planet?

Actually, LABMAN57, Bugs Bunny defeated the Martian while the two were on Earth's moon when he stole his thermal detonator.

@Brad Friedman

Nothing was incorrectly asserted as the image was lifted directly from his secret forums and those files are not uploaded and stored there without his permission. Sorry if the truth hurts but Cook did it to himself.

and describing thousands of climate scientists from across the globe as "extremist" and "alarmist", etc.

Please quote where this claim was made on my site.

@Ernest A. Canning,

It is an irrefutable fact that the IPKA website is run by a self-admitted Internet Stalker. Your denial of this is amusing.

The pseudo-scientific Poptech has attempted to reduce the solid science that forms the basis for the "scientific theory" of global climate change to unsubstantiated fantasy precisely because he is engaged in bad faith "denial." That is why it is appropriate to describe his website as a "denier website."

Where have I rejected that the climate does not change globally? Seem appear to be an amateur in this debate.

For the record I have always demanded to be convinced and have found none of the alarmist science convincing.

Poptech kept trolling @ 18 with:

the image was lifted directly from his secret forums and those files are not uploaded and stored there without his permission. Sorry if the truth hurts but Cook did it to himself.

Ah, I see. So if a guest blogger here, Ernie for example, happens to find a photo of me somewhere on the Internet photoshopped to make me look like a Nazi --- lets say at some disreputable website like Poptech --- and he then uploads it to one of our upload directories so that I have it, then that would be me "doing it to myself" or, as you described it, me "apparently pretending" to be a Nazi.

Your feeble understanding of what constitutes evidence likely helps explain your global warming denialism. And, just to pre-empt (given your silly response to Ernie @ 19), yes, that is still denial of the scientific theory of global climate change, even if I didn't include the word "anthropogenic" before it.

Run along now and troll elsewhere, son. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there dumb enough, and more than willing to buy your silly, waste of time bullshit.