This is the way to do it, and not just on global warming/climate change.

Thanks for all YOU do, too.

repugliKKKans=C.A.V.E. people. Citizens Against Virtually Everything !Thank you Brad for being and doing what you do !

He is no longer speaking as a republicrat or demublican. He is speaking of a human being, concerned for our planet and how it will treat his progeny.

Both "partys" are just 2 wings of the corporate beast that is strangling our Mother Earth.

We MUST slay the beast. Both partys should be outlawed, their leaders imprisoned.

I'm curious what he had to say about GW when he was sitting/running?

The number of sane, uncorrupted conservatives and progressives in Congress is dwindling to an insignificant few. The people who are replacing them are neither Republicans nor Democrats. They are Plutocrats. They are but the pawns of the billionaire class who regard true democracy--government of, for and by the people--as the enemy.

Scratch any source of climate change denial and you will find, at its core, the dirty energy cartel whose true motivation has never been a search for science, but, instead, the fulfillment of maximum short-term profits, sustainability be damned.

With the Plutocrats in firm control of the House, as well as a sufficient number to filibuster legislation in the Senate, there is absolutely no prospect whatsoever for meaningful climate change legislation over the next two years.

Given the reality that we will reach a point where climate forcings can become irreversible in the very near future, the prospects for the survival of our species, and many others, has now considerably dimmed.

Do notice the characterization. The Earth is undergoing perpetual "Climate-Change." Any grade-schooler who made a "C" or better in his science class can relate to that.

This means that "Global Warming" (and the flip side of that coin, Global Cooling) is ALWAYS happening somewhere on the planet. In the meantime, there is just as much evidence that Global Cooling is happening in just about as many places around the globe as there is evidence of Global Warming. Consequently, the Chaos aspect of physics seems to be taking hold.

Nowadays, especially in the United States, if a scientist or University science department wants first-class financing for their programs, they must first bow to the great god CAPITALISM. There is even a Capitalist Political Party. Within this Party's economic vice grip are its two more subordinate political details, the Republican wing, and also a Democrat(ic) wing. BY LAW, no other political party in the United States may (nationally) automatically compete with its chosen candidate representatives without first having to qualify their "popularity." Most usually of course, the CPP's corporate media provides virtually all of its attention to the "most popular" candidates ... under the Democrat/Repub litmus.

Remember Al Gore, you know, the surrender-monkey? He is heavily invested in the "Global Warming" scam. Wherever his brand of Capitalism (i.e., predatory) is involved, objectivity gets ALL Orwellian.

So, who to believe? The scientists whose funding is dependent upon a preditorially capitalist agenda? The Climate-Changing scientist of Europe AND the Far East don't exactly see eye-to-eye with Al Gore, or the rest of his Kool-Aide drinkers.

Climate Change? Schit-sure ... but whose facts to believe?

As I look through the above article, Rep BI doesn't seem to express too much loyalty towards the Global Warming paradigm. Instead, he seem to still be open to all those corporately less popular, minority reports.

DanD

DanD said:

there is just as much evidence that Global Cooling is happening in just about as many places around the globe as there is evidence of Global Warming. Consequently, the Chaos aspect of physics seems to be taking hold.

Wow, dude. ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, the entirety of the fossil-fuel industry and their disinformed suckers in the "Tea Party" couldn't have said it better themselves.

Feel free to share your evidence that the globe is cooling as much as it's warming. While you're at it, feel free to share your data showing that "chaos" is responsible for flatline global temps for the last 10,000 or so years before suddenly rising precipitously only in the last 100 or so years as the use of fossil fuels proliferated world wide. 

As to the rest of your comment, I'd dismantle that as well, but I'm a bit under the weather right now and would prefer to rest over debunking baseless fossil-fuel industry created conspiracy theories. Suffice to say for now then, simply because Alex Jones and Glenn Beck tell you something, does not make it true.   

Oh, DanD. I wish you were right, and that the scientific data actually said what you believe it says.

But wishes don't count in science. The data must stand alone, and I regret to inform you that the data simply does not support your opinions or your conclusions.

First:
>The Earth is undergoing perpetual "Climate-Change."
True. Unfortunately that's not the issue.

The evidence shows that human activity has added inputs at far greater rates than the Earth's global systems usually handle, which is the very definition of destabilization. Climate shifts that in the past took millions of years to manifest are, in our lifetimes, happening on the order of decades. We're entering into an era where there is no correlating period in the geologic record --- and the closest correlations coincide with mass extinctions.

>This means that "Global Warming" (and the flip side of that coin, Global Cooling) is ALWAYS happening somewhere on the planet. In the meantime, there is just as much evidence that Global Cooling is happening in just about as many places around the globe as there is evidence of Global Warming.
False. First, you are conflating weather with climate. Short term conditions are weather, long term trends are climate. The long term global temperature trend is clearly rising, as is the long term global trend toward more frequent, extreme, intense weather events --- exactly as predicted by climate scientists many years ago. These two facts are not in dispute among the scientific community. Even prominent "skeptics" agree.

Every single reputable scientific organization in the entire world - without exception --- agrees that human activities are raising global temperatures and causing the climate to shift.

That's quite a tight global conspiracy --- hundreds of thousands of scientists are all in agreement to trick the world, for money, over 150 years of climate science, without a single individual ever coming forward to blow the whistle --- especially considering a whistleblower scientist would make soooo much money going public with those accusations in today's media climate.

It must take some serious intellectual dishonesty to focus only on the claim, without any evidence, that scientists the world over devote their lives to the hard discipline of gathering field data just so they can get research money, and completely ignore the BILLIONS in profits from fossil fuel corporations that are threatened by the data, and that have been provably, demonstrably shown to have spent millions funding climate change denial industry front groups.

Finally, don't conflate the scientific evidence with the potential policy solutions as you perceive them to be. The scientific evidence stands alone. What we do about is an entirely different matter.

Go to SkepticalScience.com next time to see if your understanding of the science holds up to scrutiny. And look up ocean acidification while you're at it. You'll find, I think , that none of your myths account for that.

DanD @5 wrote:

"Global Warming" (and the flip side of that coin, Global Cooling) is ALWAYS happening somewhere on the planet.

What part of the word "global" are you having difficulty understanding?

The fact is, as consistently measured, year-after-year, "global" temperatures have been rising throughout the period of the industrial revolution, and that "global" increase in temperatures coincides with a global increase in atmospheric CO2.

The process entails not only the increase in global atmospheric temperatures but an increase in ocean temperatures which is perhaps of greater significance given its impact on the polar ice caps.

The melting of glaciers and polar caps accelerates global warming for several reasons, include the fact that white ice reflects heat back into space, whereas an increase in dark ocean mass increases the amount of solar energy that is absorbed.

Des correctly points out @7 that, like so many of the uninformed, you have confused "local" weather variations with global temperatures that exist on a planetary scale. You can no more disprove global warming by pointing to an exceptionally cold winter in NYC than you can prove global warming by pointing to an exceptionally hot day in LA--a record 113 degrees.

If you want to understand the "science"--as opposed to the propaganda--I would strongly urge that you read Storms of My Grandchildren: The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity by Dr. James Hansen. Dr. Hansen is an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In the realm of global climate change, ignorance, as you've displayed here, is most certainly not bliss!

Oh lord, my conspiracy-theory mindset had me all aflutter. Anyway~

Brad;

Perhaps you may want to first scan across (or perhaps even really read) the following websites before you continue my anti-warmista crucifixion.

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://nzclimatescience....task=view&id=26& Itemid=1

http://www.exploratorium...mate/primer/atmos-p.html

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~...kitri/research/nvst.html

http://www.yaleclimateme...on-climate-misconception s-global-temperature-records/

Basically, there really is no overwhelming scientific consensus on the Earth's impending climate doom of "Global Warming." Instead, there's only a marginally predominating, corporate media endorsed view, and then of course, there's an appreciable number of minority reports.

But as it seems, the Global Warming paradigm is really as much of a religion to many as it is a theory-based in science. Right now, the world's corporate media (effectively meaning its owners) is heavily invested in a carbon-tax enslavement scam meant for the rest of the planet (Al Gore is HEAVILY invested). Furthermore, they are using "True Believers (TM, Gore)" as also you seem to have devolved into in order to accomplish their reality.

Why is it, when somebody disagrees with your climate assessments, when your educated skills are not commensurate for competently arguing the subject at hand, you automatically try to "tea-bag" insult your perceived opponent? Brad, as a professional watchdog of election integrity, I know of no one who does a better job of that function than you. But are you also a climate scientist? From what I read on the Bradblog, I don't think so.

Now, I'm not a tea-bagger, and no guy has ever drug his nasty/smelly nuts across my face. Not in a similar vein, while I don't really know what your own personal practices of tea-partying are (though I really could care less, and probably will), why are you also conflating something you know a whole lot about --- that being election integrity --- with a highly complex issue (with many competing scientific, economic and political power-players) with which you have little to no formal scientific training in? Furthermore, why would you even damage your fine reputation as a voter's rights activist by so prejudicially endorsing one scientific opinion regarding the heavily interpretive subject of climate science over any other that does not precisely agree with it? You are like some rabid Zionist of the Megaphone guild attempting to use the scorched-earth logic of Holocaust Heresy in order to describe another person's pesimistic view of a competing theory of the scientific realm. The default emotional angst that you express against ALL those who even just mildly disagree with you harms your other endeavors.

In the meantime, while I also have no intensive training in climate science, I am a very good investigator. Why do I know this? Well, it's because I've accomplished certain kinds of investigation that most people would never even dream of even attempting. Furthermore, my investigations have succeeded. I am confident in my own assessments. This is mostly because I don't depend on faith or spiritual revelation as my guiding light.. Even while (or perhaps because of) I freely admit that I'm not a scientist, I yet refuse to "faithfully" endorse ANY particular scientist or group thereof ... especially about something as complex and politically assaulted as climate science.

As it is, I do feel that there is a significant anthropogenic problem effecting our planet's ecology. But I have also assessed that atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels are not the central focus of our most dangerous problem. Instead, it involves how the gas that is most critical to carbon-based life is being depleted out of the Earth's stratosphere. THAT, I believe, is where the real science is being diverted from.

In the meantime, as you clearly threaten, if you can so extensively deflate my own assessments with unimpeachable evidence, please do so.

DanD

So, DanD, let me get this straight --- you admit that you are not a scientist and have no formal scientific training, yet you believe that your own analysis is superior to the vast majority of climate scientists, Earth systems scientists, and every single scientific research organization on the planet --- superior to those who've actually done the hard work of education & training, gathering the field data, interpreting the results, and submitting their work to the peer review process.

I really don't mean to be rude, but surely you can understand how your research and analysis doesn't carry the same weight as actual scientists in those fields.

Besides: I yet refuse to "faithfully" endorse ANY particular scientist or group thereof ... especially about something as complex and politically assaulted as climate science.

Except you just did, several times. And then accused those who don't agree with you --- Brad, the world's scientific community, the media, Al Gore, the kitchen sink --of being either party to a global conspiracy or victims of religious fervor, as if somehow yours is the only research that counts.

So how does your research account for rising ocean temperatures and accelerating ocean acidification?

Um, DES;

Did you actually read any of the websites I provided?

Anyway, yup, I confess, I'm no scientist. So let's take another example, where the dominate gaggle of experts that have strategically been lined up by the government to so seemlessly "prove" a different government conspiracy theory.

Another poster up above ... oh! his handle is "DES," he/she states:

"Every single reputable scientific organization in the entire world - without exception --- agrees that human activities are raising global temperatures and causing the climate to shift.
That's quite a tight global conspiracy --- hundreds of thousands of scientists are all in agreement to trick the world, for money, over 150 years of climate science, without a single individual ever coming forward to blow the whistle --- especially considering a whistleblower scientist would make soooo much money going public with those accusations in today's media climate."

Anybody ever hear about that "ter-rist" attack on September 11, 2001? No kidding, about 24 hours AFTER that destructive epoch in history, the gubmint knew exactly who did it and how it happened. For that matter, the government was so confident in its evidence that it (did NOT possess) had showing how it happened, that the same government almost immediately destroyed all evidence resulting from the WTC 1, 2, and 7 having been destroyed (can't let any minority reporters have any food for thought, ya' know)!

Oh yeah, the masters of WestWing, WDC had a gaggle of government scientists and architects just waiting in the wings in order to confirm exactly how THREE (count-em, one, two, three) massive, steel-framed skyscrapers, each suffering from vastly variable impact damages (oops, wait ... WTC 7 suffered NO impact damage) --- two of which fell from over a hundred stories up --- fell precisely into their own footprints ... without ANY help from a demolition expert at all.

Of course, no RESPECTABLE scientist of metallurgy or other professional architect (who wants to keep working) would EVER contradict the current government conspiracy theory postulating about cave-dwelling Afghani hijackers (most were actually Middle-Eastern) becoming expert suicide fighter pilots in Florida by flying single-engine Cessnas and using simulators programmed for passenger aircraft for a few weeks. In the meantime, ANYBODY, regardless of how expert they may be, who disagrees with the government's official conspiracy theory, are just crazy wack-jobs ... kinda' like the world's --- all lumped into one psychotic container --- anti-wamista crew.

Yup, ALL the exclusively righteous climate scientists are saying ("the ADVERTISED majority that is"); "Why, of course Global Warming is our authorized official truth!" Any and all "other" scientists are just heretic members of the anti-warmista sect!

But, what about the previous, 110 years of solid climate science that caused SO MANY of a generationally older group of environmental scientists (along with quite a few individuals of the current gaggle, when they were a bit younger), when they made the following assessment in the 1970s:

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

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]"

Ultimately, this same Wiki-article largely "debunks" the failed climate religion of Global Cooling with its hindsight view of subsequent climate theorizing.

Fact is, besides following a global warming agenda, nobody seems to be talking about how the sea ice at the north pole can be melting, inspite of the fact that there is adjacent to the area a range of underwater volcanoes that are currently going active, and have been for a while, or whether even that there are ANY other circumstances that just may cause a "false-positive" regarding global warming ... just as was determined for several years earlier regarding global cooling. After all, the religion of Global Warming must remain pure!

TO ME, just as it is obvious that the Bush-cabal's "ter-rist" paradigm could never effectively explain 9-11, I also cannot see that the current emphasis on a potentially massive, global-warming dieoff is (exclusively) in the making either. As the above articles I provided relate, the margin of error quite effectively wipes out GW's margin of proof. Remember again, they are all under the comforable-survivor's only thumb of global predatory capitalism.

In any event, I have come to realize that it may be something much worse.

DanD

Heres the problem. Most of the commenters dont understand it not about Dem vs Repub. Its The government vs the people. There are few bad apples among the honest politicians(oxymoron, I know) that control most of the herd. This time around its Nancy Pelosi, last time it was Tom Delay. Same thing different name equally as bad.
They are controlled by the bankers. If you dont understand that by now, I'm sorry.

Look at the collapse of the Chicago carbon tax exchange. Big scam unraveling. Think Enron.
I dont think that man made global warming is a correct assessment of the climate cycles that the earth goes through. Ice age, Maurander minimum??

You can look at the ice extent records for this year. Right on track for an average year. Its the red line for those that cant read graphs.
http://wattsupwiththat.c...ence-pages/sea-ice-page/

How about surface www.stations.org?? A survey of surface temperature station that should have been carried out by NOAA. The temperature appears to be climbing because of the skew in temperature stations towards urban stations..

Same with satellite data. No warming or at least not to the degree of gloom and doom we must put everybody on carbon restriction even though you are made of it.

Dont get me wrong. I think oil and fossil fuels are a bad thing and I dont like the oil companies.

But there are other way of doing thing that are not so, shall we say, as unscientific as name calling.

Look at the data and stop letting your emotions drag you by your stupid.

Ohhhh-no-ya don't! Keep your nutjob, cartel created, GW hoax fantasy land lunacy far, far away from the empirical certainty that the official 9/11 fairy tale CANNOT be true.

No sireeee....not gonna letcha....wunt be prudent.....

Tell Cass Sunstein its not going to fly. Not here. Move along.

that was directed at Dandy. Although, Brant, you make a curious spectacle in and of your own wiggly linguistics self.

After parroting the energy cartel's every whim and whisper it is by now de rigour to add......................."I think oil and fossil fuels are a bad thing and I don't like the oil companies?"

Right. So you will join me in calling for the entire sectors Nationalization? Yes? Brant? precious? where did u go..............?

Yes, DanD, I looked at your links. Did you?

Two of them don't support your conclusion. And surely you're aware that the others have been widely discredited, within the last two years, if your research is really as deep as you claim it is.

Sorry, but attempting to change the subject by shouting "9/11" doesn't count as scientific evidence.

But including the long-ago debunked, and completely false claims "in the 1970s they said it was an ice age!" shows you haven't done the research.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond and debunk every single bs claim you've made here. It's clear that you haven't done the research or read the primary scientific literature.

For everyone else, if you have the time, you can look up the actual primary scientific literature for yourself, with easy-to-grasp explanations of what the data means, and debunk every single denier argument at SkepticalScience.com.

DanD said @ various:

Why is it, when somebody disagrees with your climate assessments, when your educated skills are not commensurate for competently arguing the subject at hand, you automatically try to "tea-bag" insult your perceived opponent?

For one, because it's a Tea Bagger argument. Straight from the lips of the fossil-fuel funded kings of the Tea Baggers (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) There is no difference between your argument and theirs. It is the fossil-fuel industry funded Tea Party's line. Period.

If you believe there is merit to it nonetheless, so be it. But the argument you're making comes straight from ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers and their pawns and prostitutes in the Rightwing/TeaBag media. Sorry. That is your problem, not mine.

Brad, as a professional watchdog of election integrity, I know of no one who does a better job of that function than you. But are you also a climate scientist? From what I read on the Bradblog, I don't think so.

I am not. Neither am I a computer scientist. Therefore, in the case of both election integrity and climatology, I defer to the science in both cases. Have you noticed that? And in the area of climate science, there is one consensus: the globe is warming and it's most likely helped along by man-made contributions.

let's take another example, where the dominate gaggle of experts that have strategically been lined up by the government to so seemlessly "prove" a different government conspiracy theory.

No. Let's not. Since the two issues are in no way comparable other than in Alex Jones Land (and only comperable there because he champions both issues of 911 Trutherism, along with Global Warming is a Scam-erism, and also, stuff like Obama is a Kenyan, etc.) You refer to this is a "government conspiracy theory", but which government? Since there are hundreds in agreement about GW, all working together, on open, shared data which has been available to them and you for decades. (All of that, btw, unlike much of the data regarding 9/11 which has been closely guarded and/or not available for public review or scientific inspection, much less hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed studies from hundreds, if not thousands of climatologists in differing disciplines as we have with climate science.)

In short, simply because you believe one thing is a covered-up governmental conspiracy, whether it is or isn't has no relation to whether something else is a covered-up conspiracy.

As to your quote from Wikipedia, the reader-updated encyclopedia, concerning the 1970s-era claims of global cooling, even your quoted text debunks your own theory. As you yourself note in the quote, the theory was regarded as "conjecture" with "mixed support in the scientific community". Unlike for GW, there was no "consensus" of scientists. That, of course, is an understament.

This comes from SkepticalScience.com which I might suggest (as I believe Desi did previously), that you check before offering long-ago debunked nonsense...

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

More here...

If you don't wish to be Tea Bagged by your own arguments, I suggest you don't use Tea Bagger language to make your long-ago debunked claims. When you use phrases like "After all, the religion of Global Warming must remain pure!" which is constantly used by every bagger from Beck to Limbaugh to Hannity, verbatim, you're not really going to be surprised when someone calls you out for using those very same, long-ago disproved claims and dead-ringer phrases are you?

Well, apparently, you are. I might suggest you think again about who is actually following a faith-based "religion" here, Dan, versus who has scientific fact on their side.

BRANT - I don't have time right now to debunk your nonsense after spending time on DanD, re-explaining the same things I've had to explain god-knows-how-many-times to others who have been similarly scammed by the fossil-fuel industry and their dupes (and, more importantly, I'm trying to get well enough to host Malloy's show this week, etc.) So please do me a favor. The claims you make above concerning "ice extent records" and "surface temperature stations"? Please go over to SkepticalScience.com, review the pages of data they offer to debunk both claims, and then come back here with the evidence showing that they got it wrong. K? Thanks in advance!

Here ya go, Brant:

Debunking the Surface Station Temperature Lie:
http://www.skepticalscie...ng-bias-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscie...erature-measurements.htm

Arctic ice in 2010 was the third lowest on record:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.skepticalscie...ic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

It isn't the sun, and your understanding of the Maunder Minimum and other factors of solar activity needs updating:
http://www.skepticalscie...spots-global-warming.htm

Brad has already pointed you over to the full debunking of the '1970s ice age' idiocy. Here's another:

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. (Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)

Again, please try to muster the intellectual honesty to separate the scientific data from the potential policy responses, as you perceive them to be. Just because you don't like the policies as you understand them --- which may not be an accurate undestanding, either --- doesn't overturn the mountains of scientific data.

BTW, the Chicago carbon exchange was closed, not collapsed, because the Senate didn't pass any legislation to put a price on carbon --- no legislation means no market. No corruption was found, no Enron, but thanks for putting that little red herring in there to further disinform folks.

Oh, and DanD and Brant?

Please address the data showing accelerating ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures, and link to the primary scientific literature if possible.

Aaagggghhh. Head is spinning. Must return focus to first season of Firefly. Netflix is so much more fun that YOU folk!?!? No, honestly, thanks Ernest, Brad, et al. The patience required to respond to folks who aren't predisposed to investigate alternate viewpoints is something I simply don't possess. So you who do, BLESS you! OK, back to my previously scheduled nap. Sooo much easier than dealing with all this...

Brad;

Don't you love the internet? Even within posted articles that may not support an arguement of anybody referring to it, many posts will also have comments sections appended to them. If I have referred to some screed which does not particularly agree with my own summations, perhaps it's because I am instead referring to some relevant comment made in the feedback section.

Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity ... you seem to be enamoured to quite a crew of propaganda artists. Myself? I listen neither to talk radio, and (for the last 7 years or so) I also don't keep a television in my apartment. This resulted in my natural revulsion to the corporate propaganda mill that has so virulently hijacked America's Fourth Estate. In any event, there is a primary difference between what you assess to be "my arguement" and theirs. As with the primary focus of the above article on Republican Bob Inglis, I don't summarily proclaim that there's no such thing a climate change. I also don't religiously proclaim that Global Warming --- as a much subordinate element of global climate change --- also does not exist.

Instead, I've simply determined that the current decade's massive propaganda scare of a Global Warming meltdown has entirely too much fraud laced within its database-of-proof to be taken at face value. Do note just these samplings:

http://www.guardian.co.u...rajendra-pachauri-regret
"The head of the UN climate science body has admitted he was taken entirely by surprise by the ferocious public reaction to a blunder in its report on Himalayan glaciers. But he insisted the controversy had not set back efforts to secure action on climate change."

http://www.dailymail.co....-knew-data-verified.html
Glacier scientist: "I knew data hadn't been verified"

http://wattsupwiththat.c...-pressure-policy-makers/
Fake GW data used to pressure policy makers

http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
Global Warming's fake "Stranded Bear" headline

http://whatreallyhappene...ICLES/globalwarming.html
For all you people who love GW charts

ALL ABOUT THE DEVINE FAITH OF GLOBAL WARMING
http://abcnews.go.com/US...ry?id=3719791&page=1

Now, while I am sure that your proselyzing groupies will undoubtedly "debunk" ALL the above allegations of fraud as simply "misunderstood" or "out-of-context" mischief, while the fact may be that some of those emails and malfeasance are, a whole lot more of the surreptitiously discovered misconduct surely ain't.

DanD

When you look outside.. you can say to yourself that man has had no impact on the weather. And this 1's gold.. if can't see it it doesn't exist. Now there's a good strategy for a perfect life.

Final words: Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and if given a choice, I recommend the grape.

DanD, you are, of course, welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.

But don't call it science.

Yes, one could easily go through every single one of your links and fully debunk them with actual, verifiable scientific data. But it's clear that would be a waste of time.

That's understandable --- when an objective examination of the scientific facts leads to uncomfortable conclusions, it's completely human to cling to fiction.

A little suggestion: when trying to convince others that your opinion is based in fact, it helps to present actual data. When your response to a scientific argument is to present easily disprovable, non-scientific, long-ago-debunked-and-now-ridiculed arguments as "evidence", and then accuse those who shred your bs with actual scientific data as "proselytizing groupies" ... well, let's just say it's not very convincing. You might want to start by upgrading your research techniques and objective analysis skills. Just sayin'.

And what about you DES?

The only things I see in your responses are ad-hominim name-calling and other generic declarations condemning my climate "heresy."

By your own divine revelations, you quite arrogantly profess that EVERYTHING I present is invariably "long-ago-debunked-and-now-ridiculed arguments." Whether you realize it or not, you sound just like all those vicious little Baptist minister from somewhere in the Deep South's "Bible-belt," railing against some hapless adherent of Catholicism, or perhaps a practitioner of Yoga.

Your not communicating with the language of debate and have never really intended to; the tactics of verbal conquest you're attempting against me are virtually identical to the mean-spirited bleatings of Rush Limbaugh. If I want to scan your type of garbage talk, I would just log on over to a Freeper Nation websites.

Now Brad ~

I will make one suggestion to you ... divorce your online elections integrity advocacy (ETA) from your quasi-religious crusade against Global Warming. Where you nave won many people over to your ETA because of your fantastic investigations and obvious revelations of truth regarding the evils of computerized elections fraud, you then turn right around and lose them again when your GW groupies like Des here get all venemous because some chosen opponent may refuse to lay down and surrender to his/her supremely superior assauts of malice.

Many of us who may have initially advertised positive comments about The Bradblog for its many truths about elections integrity will (and have) ultimately decided to entirely abandon our own endorsements of you simply because we don't perceive the extensively "soft-science," global warming issue exactly as you seem to prefer. We also don't like punks such as DES character-assassinating us. In the end, as far as elections integrity is concerned, that puts you on the losing end.

You see Brad, your dog-pack of Koolaide drinkers really don't care if you end up losing in the long run, just as long as they have the opportunity to be so self-righteously nasty to somebody at least one time a day. And you're providing them with the forum.

Tell me Brad, what's more important to you, your official endeavor by which YOU are the expert ... or your Global Warming advocacy, which is a whole different can of worms? Or is it --- in a similar vein to JMM's Talking Points Memo --- the Brandblog is only a bait-n-switch "limited hangout," but for GW propaganda? TPM provides a whole shitload of top-notch political coverage and assessments ... but it's also just another website running perpetual interference for that religiously fascist war-crimes state of Zionland. TPM's overall mission is to keep the war criminals of "Israel" in the good graces of the American taxpayer.

So, are you really satisfied with being presumed just another religiously faithful handjob of the Global Warming brand?

DanD

You know, DanD, I've looked through my responses and don't see where I've called you any names or attacked you personally in any fashion. If you can point out to me where I did that, then an apology would be forthcoming.

From the beginning I've said that the data simply does not support your conclusions, and have presented verifiable links that you clearly didn't bother to read.

If being presented with verifiable scientific evidence and having one person call your arguments unconvincing constitutes 'ad-hominem attacks', "nasty", and "name-calling" --- then we are not using the common definitions of those words.

Okay DES;

What about when you referred to me as a lying fraud? in an above, earlier response you state:

"It must take some serious intellectual dishonesty to focus only on the claim, without any evidence, that scientists the world over devote their lives to the hard discipline of gathering field data just so they can get research money, and completely ignore the BILLIONS in profits from fossil fuel corporations that are threatened by the data, and that have been provably, demonstrably shown to have spent millions funding climate change denial industry front groups."

Dick Cheney was/is "intellectually dishonest, as also were/is Carl Rove, Colin Powell, and Rush Limbaugh. Just because you simply "sugar-coat" your ad-hominim euphamisms with sweeter-sounding modifiers DOES NOT (in my view) mitigate the established insult. To denigrate someone as a dishonest person is functionally to call them a liar and a cheat. To question their conduct as intellectually dishonest is to imply that they are a conniving fraudster. That's about as ad-hominim as you can get!

Now, unlike the tea-bagger brand of "GW scheptics, I am not (and never have) claimed that petroleum and fossil fuel (mostly coal) are not seriously damaging the Earth's environment. But when the top, IPCC administrators in charge of Global Warming's faith-based dogma of Warmista literature is blatantly caught endorsing un-peer reviewed data as scientifically valid conclusions, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, such dishonest "mistakes" also cause all other bottle-neck-collected and officially endorsed "data-of-proof" to be suspect for its legitimacy.

http://www.americanthink...academy_lays_an_egg.html
How could the Academy reach such a conclusion? Simply by ignoring any contrary evidence --- all published in peer-reviewed journals and readily available. So another interesting question is: Why did they ignore contrary evidence? For the answer, we must turn to psychologists or sociologists. On the other hand, the French Academy should be praised for organizing a debate on climate, however imperfect. I cannot imagine that the U.S. National Academy would even consider such an idea.

http://www.foxnews.com/s...e-than-climategate-data/
Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion --- that the Earth is getting warmer. But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

ANYTIME clearly unacceptable data is dogmatically included within a larger body of research as "proof" of that theoretical endeavor's veracity, The entire project becomes suspect.

http://www.thenewamerica...mit-global-warming-fraud
Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed "our [inadequate] observing system." Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the "Climategate" bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical "trick" he used to "hide" data. Or perhaps they mean Mann's reference to climate change skeptics as "idiots."

You have absolutely no proof of my "intellectual dishonesty," yet freely use that insult towards any fundamental scheptic who dares not guilelessly bow donw ONLY to your interpretation of GW's religiously-administered dogma.

How can you possibly claim that you represent ONLY the truth when your own intellectual leaders selectively fail to "faithfully" exclude all irrelevant or otherwise flawed data instead uncritically endorse such information simply because it expands GW's dogmatically formal, alleged theories-of-fact?

Yet ANOTHER admitted IPCC fraud! Why aren't people being canned right and left?
http://answers.yahoo.com...id=20100124094150AA44RS3

So, what about your apology?

DanD

And also:

http://news.nationalgeog...070228-mars-warming.html

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Oh, all those "Climate-Change" heretics over there at the National Geographic magazine.

DanD

DanD -

It's remarkable. You take umbrage at being compared to a Tea Bagger, then proceed to quote from Tea Bag media outlets like FoxNews.com and American Thinker as evidence for your many-times-over debunked nonsense. Then you throw in an argument made by Fred Thompson and Lyndon Larouche to fill out the bargain. But why should be be compared to a Tea Bagger?! Sigh... Add to that then, your remarkably thin skin...

What about when you referred to me as a lying fraud?

Um, no. She did no such thing. She replied to what she regarded as "intellectual dishonesty" in your argument before you then suggest that because "Dick Cheney ...Carl (sic) Rove, Colin Powell, and Rush Limbaugh" are intellectually dishonest and "lying frauds", then she must be calling you a "lying fraud" as well. Golly, glad she didn't refer to you as a "man", cuz you know who else was a man? Hitler! Clearly, had she called you a man, or even a human, it would have been exactly the same as calling you a genocidal madman, using your logic --- logic which you seem to apply, both poorly and thoroughly to your Climate Change Denialist Cult worship.

So, man up there, DanD. But more valuably, improve your arguments, rather than simply regurgitating long ago refuted nonsense from the Church of Denialism Cultists which you seem to have complete and utter faith in, rather than questioning (as we do every day, btw) hard facts and data.

To question their conduct as intellectually dishonest is to imply that they are a conniving fraudster. That's about as ad-hominim as you can get!

Sorry, bub. That's not nearly "as ad-hominim as you can get". Not by a long shot. I'll do you the favor of not demonstrating that for you right now.

So back to the "substance" of your continuously cherry-picked claims, which, as previously noted, have long ago been debunked over and again. But then again, Wingnut/Tea Baggger publications American Thinker and Fox News, as you quoted above, reported them anyway, so --- despite their lack of actual demonstrable evidence for the claims --- you find them to be legitimate arguments. Okay. Sorry, but I don't. Have you even bother to look at the three (or is it four?) independent studies that have now found your (and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh etc.'s) "ClimateGate" to be complete bunk? That no data was falsified and that the scientists alleged to have been involved in this oh-so-scandalous non-scandal committed no professional wrong doing? Or are those studies just produced by more of the dastardly scientists who are in on the grand world-wide conspiracy which the poor poor folks at the fossil fuel industry are simply powerless to take on?

As if that's all not already amusing enough, you then point us to a user created Yahoo page?! (Seriously, I wish I was joking, and even now question why I'm still wasting any time with someone who is so evidently clueless when it comes to separating legitimate, substantive information from anonymous, pre-bunked comments posted on the Internets.) So where that all should be amusing enough, we then find that the argument you link to comes from LarouchePAC?! Seriously? Do you have any idea who that is? Clearly not, because even when they refer to the "Nazi World Wildlife Fund" (Seriously, that's what you have linked to, someone who refers to the WWF as "Nazis"!) you feel it merits our time and attention as serious information, evidence, commentary or...God knows why you are even pointing to it, other than you must truly be so enthrall of whatever Mr. Jones tells you, that you are willing to search high and low to find something, anything, to justify it, no matter how silly and unserious it actually is.

I know why Alex does what he does. I just have no idea what you'd be so foolish to do be his simpleton patsy, by passing on his nonsense as if it's legitimate.

Finally then, you toss in one more link to the, yes, silly argument concerning Mars suggesting highly highly speculative "warming" there, based on almost zero evidence, demonstrates something about warming here on Planet Earth.

You even go so far as to quote that the charges come from "one" (one!) scientist's "controversial" (controversial!) "theory" (theory!), as if it somehow serves to counter decades of scientific data from hundreds/thousands of scientists across the globe in dozens of different earth science disciplines, virtually all of whom have come to virtually the same conclusions through hundreds of peer-reviewed studies decade after decade.

We already requested that you check the simple-to-understand source at SkepticalScience.com before bringing those silly theories here, but you simply refused apparently. So, for the last time, to help you, please see their page on the Mars Warming stuff, yet another debunked denialist argument, as based on two snapshots take of the planet's weather (not climate) and then forwarded recently by failed Presidential candidate Fred Thompson (who, of course, you are nothing at all like just because you both forward the same arguments, along with Beck's, Limbaugh's, Hannity's, ExxonMobile's and the Koch brothers etc.)

Last request, once again, please check your theories against the scientists at SkepticalScience.com first. And then when you have data that disputes theirs, feel free to share it. Other than that, I see no reason to waste any more time with someone who is so willing to invest so much faith in the Corporate-Funded Religion/Cult of Global Warming Denialist Propagandists and Snake Oil Salesmen, as you have demonstrating fealty to, despite all evidence to show what a sucker you've been played for by these profiteer cretins.

Wow Brad, you certainly got faith. But tell me, as an acceptable tactic of debating a scientific subject, does DES just casually dismiss your ragingly misogynistic tactic of demanding that a chosen climate-change opponent preferably "Man" up to the (your) Global Warming version of "truth"? Oh my ... how homo-centric of you.

In the meantime, while re-reading your Skeptical Science articles, I came across the following relevant comment posted below the article. It quite effectively reveals the circumstance currently plaguing your blog. Fundamentally Brad for you and your posse of faithful, ANY skeptic who does not tow-the-line of your very narrow (Good-Guy) interpretation of Global Warming is (short of a unconditionally surrendering "conversion") a "Bad" guy, and you vociferously treat them as such. It's also quite insightful regarding the Good-Guy, Bad-Guy routine of Global Warming/Other-Climate-Change paradigms that are being ping-pong batted around here.

The fact that you and your KoolAide drinkers keep insisting --- regardless my own self-characterizations --- that I am in the same heretical league as the batshit crazyest tea-bagger cultists appreciably convinces me that I am not dealing with any skeptically-default rationalists of the scientific method, but instead, have only confronted yet another intelligently-designed cabal of the Global-Warmista brand ... .

Please attend: http://skepticalscience....l-Climategate.html#31354

batsvensson at 03:07 AM on 21 November, 2010
@Marcus

"the reality is that the underlying science behind climate change has always been sound-& remains sound-a fact"

So there is no conspiracy.

"in Perth its the worst its ever been-& even if it does, that doesn't automatically rule out the possibility that future rises in global temperature won't be catastrophic."

Neither does it rule out the possibility it wont be catastrophic either.

"The reality remains that the Fossil Fuel Industry-using its connections"

But there are some conspiracies.

"it still amounts to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY-something I've yet to see the AGW proponents to be guilty of."

So we got Bad Guys and Good Guys.

"in spite of the claims ... no contrarian has been able to provide *evidence* "

So, when Bad Guys claims there is a conspiracy there isn't one, but when Good Guys claims there is conspiracy there is one.

"Seriously Ken et al, the moment you have something amounting to *evidence* that the predictions about AGW are false-rather than ever more fanciful ad hominem attacks-then maybe you'll gain some credibility."

I would rather call it projections than predictions. But it doesn't matter because a prediction or projection or whatever label we like to use, can not be true (nor false) in climate science. It is at it best in state of being unknown until confirmed by an observation and as far as I know someone has yet to came back from say year 2100 and reported X meter elevated sea levels with predicted catastrophic events in case we do nothing.

However, even if such observation would be the case, which may or may not be the case, at year 2100 we will still at that future time point have no means to tell if the made prediction was correct (i.e. true) due to an accurate model or a temporal relations since we have no parallel universe to compare the result with.

It is a fact that climate science is not a experimental science but at most an observational science - compare with say astrophysics. The problem with observational science is that they are limited to only tell "just so"-stories.

So whatever the case turns out to be in the predictions; if we do everything in our power, or do nothing a pro-AGW'ist can always find an add-hoc answer that will explain just exactly what happen no matter what the end result is, i.e. we are limited to fit data to a theory that best explains the observations. Any science theory must work like this, the difference for observational science is that the laboratory happens to be the subject of observation itself. Hence things can not be falsified until observed as such - if ever observed.

This is one of the reason why hard core experimentalist are critical to observational science as their proposition in advanced can not be tested in a controlled test environment. As of no big surprise some valid scientific critics against climate science are made from the most hard core of all science we have, namely physics.

At last, to round this up, if you because of what you claim think you are more credible than the bad guys just because you you claim your self to be with the good guys, then consider that the arguments you makes, makes you in my eyes no better then the one you condemn as being the bad guys.

No apology to you, DanD. The argument you made --- that the world's scientific community is involved in a global conspiracy for research money (which you made without presenting any evidence), ignoring the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry (and ignoring the evidence supplied to you in the form of documentation that the fossil fuel industry has developed a well-funded PR campaign across multiple sources and groups) --- IS intellectually dishonest. It's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that criticizing your argument is the same as criticizing you, which I have not done, so you can keep the outrage you've ginned up for yourself over imagined insults that you've spun from inference.

It's not our fault your other arguments and claims don't stand up to the merest scrutiny, and can be easily disproven. The data is simply not on your side. You can try, as you have done several times, to move the goal posts and change to some new claim instead of responding to the refutation. But readers here are quite sophisticated and can smell an unsupported argument from miles away, even if you try to change the subject. They are also quite capable of looking at the many reputable sources covering this data, and reaching their own conclusions.

DanD, rather than simply admitting he's been had, said:

Fundamentally Brad for you and your posse of faithful, ANY skeptic who does not tow-the-line of your very narrow (Good-Guy) interpretation of Global Warming is (short of a unconditionally surrendering "conversion") a "Bad" guy

You're not a "'Bad' guy" to my knowledge. You're just a "Wrong" guy. If/when you're able to supply evidence (which hasn't already been long ago debunked ) for your evidence-free argument, we'll all welcome it, and can review whether you're "Right" guy after all. Until then, you've supplied none and are simply wrong and playing the pawn of some very very bad guys.

The fact that you and your KoolAide drinkers keep insisting --- regardless my own self-characterizations --- that I am in the same heretical league as the batshit crazyest tea-bagger cultists appreciably convinces me that I am not dealing with any skeptically-default rationalists of the scientific method, but instead, have only confronted yet another intelligently-designed cabal of the Global-Warmista brand ... .

If you don't wish to be put into "the same heretical league as the batshit crazyest tea-bagger cultists", might I suggest you stop quoting them, linking to them for your "evidence", using their phrases, over and over again as the only arguments you've been able to muster to suggest that you and the "heretical league [of] batshit crazy tea-bagger cultists" are right about Global Warming, and that those of us who base our opinions on demonstrable fact and evidence are wrong. Just a friendly suggestion.

"Church of Denialism"--absolutely outstanding and apropos, Brad.

First DES oh-so-righteously proclaims: "You know, DanD, I've looked through my responses and don't see where I've called you any names or attacked you personally in any fashion. If you can point out to me where I did that, then an apology would be forthcoming.

So I establish it: "What about when you referred to me as a lying fraud? in an above, earlier response you state:
"It must take some serious intellectual dishonesty to focus only on the claim, without any evidence, that scientists the world over devote their lives to the hard discipline of gathering field data just so they can get research money, and completely ignore the BILLIONS in profits from fossil fuel corporations that are threatened by the data, and that have been provably, demonstrably shown to have spent millions funding climate change denial industry front groups."

Dick Cheney was/is "intellectually dishonest, as also were/is Carl Rove, Colin Powell, and Rush Limbaugh. Just because you simply "sugar-coat" your ad-hominim euphamisms with sweeter-sounding modifiers DOES NOT (in my view) mitigate the established insult. To denigrate someone as a dishonest person is functionally to call them a liar and a cheat. To question their conduct as intellectually dishonest is to imply that they are a conniving fraudster. That's about as ad-hominim as you can get!

THEN, DES decides to move the goal posts a few miles down the road, while also becoming judge, jury, and executioner ... "No apology to you, DanD. The argument you made --- that the world's scientific community is involved in a global conspiracy for research money (which you made without presenting any evidence), ignoring the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry (and ignoring the evidence supplied to you in the form of documentation that the fossil fuel industry has developed a well-funded PR campaign across multiple sources and groups) --- IS intellectually dishonest. It's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that criticizing your argument is the same as criticizing you, which I have not done, so you can keep the outrage you've ginned up for yourself over imagined insults that you've spun from inference."

Your insult you oh-so-sweetly delivered is undeniably ad-hominim. Now, that is definitely an issue about a lack of honesty. But I admit it, yup, you've finally beat me down. You really are no better than the tea-baggers that you live to denigrate. I've come to discover that the Bradblog really isn't worth my valuable time, and I will not waste my time with it's limited hangout any more.

DanD

DanD -

Lame, amigo.

So I establish it: "What about when you referred to me as a lying fraud? in an above, earlier response"

Speaking of "established", did you even bother to read my response to you? You "established" no such thing, as she didn't refer to you as "a lying fraud" in the slightest. Golly, had climate scientists played that fast and loose with facts and data you'd have had their head! You had their head anyway, despite the lack of any evidence at all of any such fast and loose facts and data. Go figure!

Your insult you oh-so-sweetly delivered is undeniably ad-hominim. Now, that is definitely an issue about a lack of honesty. But I admit it, yup, you've finally beat me down.

Um, by "beat [you] down", do you mean "beat you"? As in, she defeated your arguments by exposing them as lacking in any and all evidence to support them? If so, then yes, it seems she beat you.

You really are no better than the tea-baggers that you live to denigrate. I've come to discover that the Bradblog really isn't worth my valuable time, and I will not waste my time with it's limited hangout any more.

"Limited hangout"? This? You're accusing us of being a CIA outfit? Seriously? Wow. As I mentioned, lame.

But I guess that's easier than defending your case with actual evidence or substance. Don't let anyone know we're just intel ops, okay? We'd hate for you to blow our cover!

In any case, sorry to see ya go. But, peace!