posted June 11, 2010 01:21 PM         

Here is a PDF article from Clive Hamilton website
Bullying, Lies and the Rise of Right-Wing Climate Denial

PDF

posted June 11, 2010 02:15 PM         

personally i don't think we are affecting the climate that much but we ARE poisoning our food supply at an increasingly alarming rate.

posted June 11, 2010 04:18 PM         

Nodes' C&P highlights of Clives' PDF

• What motivates the legion of climate deniers to send hate-mail? In recent years a great deal of
  evidence has come to light linking fossil fuel corporations with organizations that promote
  climate denial,[18] but it would be a mistake to believe that the army of skeptical bloggers is in any
  sense in the pay of, or directly influenced by, the fossil fuel lobby.
  
• 
  Climate denialism has been absorbed by an older and wider political movement, sometimes
  called right-wing populism. Emanating from the United States, and defined more by what it fears
  than by what it proposes

• The army of denialist bloggers and cyber-bullies26 is sometimes accused of being the tool of
  fossil fuel companies. Although there is certainly a concordance of interests, that is as far as the
  relationship goes. The bloggers are motivated not by financial gain (indeed, their activities may
  have a financial cost) but by political grievances and an anti-elite worldview at odds with the
  mainstream.
  
• 
  The deployment of think tanks and sceptic websites to attack climate science has been a carefully
  planned strategy that was developed in the United States in the mid-1990s. It was refined with
  the advice of political consultant *Frank Luntz* who in 2002 urged the Republican Party to
  undermine the credibility of climate science by commissioning “independent” experts to “make
  the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”. The strategy is comprehensively
  exposed by former PR insider Jim Hoggan in his recent book Climate Cover-Up.33

• 
  Last year the Brisbane Institute hosted a public lecture by *Dr Jay Lehr*, Science Director of the
  Heartland Institute. As we saw, the Heartland Institute is now the most active climate denialist
  organisation in the United States. Lehr was presented by the Brisbane Institute as an
  “internationally renowned” scientist, which is simply untrue; he has been heavily criticised for
  distorting and misrepresenting climate science. He is better known for spending three months in
  jail for defrauding the US Environmental Protection Authority in 1991.48

  as an aside anyone who calls themselves the land institute is likely to represent ideals
  exactly opposite to what the name implies, as has been proven innumerable times.

• The links of these skeptics to political organisations with strong ideological agendas stands in
  sharp contrast to the vast assemblage of legitimate climate scientists who have no political
  connections. Yet it is the latter who are accused of being politicised.

posted June 14, 2010 10:44 AM         

Even the disgraced so called climate scientist at East Anglia University, Phil Jones, admits there has been no warming of the earth since about 1995 and actually temperatures are in a down trend.

Further, it's admitted that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming but that rather rising temperatures cause rising levels of carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere...on average about 800 years later.

The crackpot man made global warming so called scientists are lined up at the public trough for government funds to continue their lifestyles.

On the other end, there's a hell of a lot of con artists..including Algore who stand to make Billions off the scam if they manage to pass "Cap and Trade" legislation.

They should all be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for falsifying official government documents...including Jim Hansen of NASA and Michael Mann who produced the phony "Hockey Stick" graph to stampede America and the rest of the world into spending trillions on a hoax and scam.

posted June 14, 2010 11:26 AM         

quote:

---

Further, it's admitted that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming but that rather rising temperatures cause rising levels of carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere...on average about 800 years later.

---

It's not "admitted" that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. It's true that there's additionally a lag, but carbon dioxide enhances warming regardless.

posted June 14, 2010 01:22 PM         

You've lost on every count and no amount of blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiit from you and the fraud, scam and con artists you choose to quote are going to rescue your lost cause.

When even the top man in the man made global warming religion, Phil Jones admits CO2 doesn't CAUSE global warming and that earth has been cooling for almost 15 years, your cause is lost....and good riddance.

Your problem is you don't know the different between cause and effect.

Rising temperatures...from the increased radiational output of the sun...CAUSE...produces rising levels of carbon dioxide in earth's atmoshpere..EFFECT.

Cause and Effect.

Even a 5th grader would get it.

posted June 14, 2010 06:08 PM         

quote:

---

Don't even attempt to suggest you've proven the crackpot theory of man made global warming acoustic.

---

More like don't even try to say you've come anywhere close to disproving global warming, Jwhop. You haven't by a long shot.

quote:

---

You've lost on every count and no amount of blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiit from you and the fraud, scam and con artists you choose to quote are going to rescue your lost cause.

---

I haven't lost on a single count, so how could I possibly have lost on all counts? My scientists are legitimate. Yours is a hired hand...hired by the oil industry.

quote:

---

When even the top man in the man made global warming religion, Phil Jones admits CO2 doesn't CAUSE global warming and that earth has been cooling for almost 15 years, your cause is lost....and good riddance.

---

Phil Jones isn't the top man, and I've posted Phil Jones' own words here in response to how people have mistaken what he's said. Go fish!

quote:

---

Your problem is you don't know the different between cause and effect.

---

Since when? It's not I that has trouble putting these together logically. That's YOUR issue. And when you can't back your scientific theory with actual scientists in the field, it's you who's sunk.

quote:

---

Rising temperatures...from the increased radiational output of the sun...CAUSE...produces rising levels of carbon dioxide in earth's atmoshpere..EFFECT.

---

The Sun isn't our climate. It is but a SINGLE factor in our climate. It's like saying fire is only the product of heat. It's obviously not. If you asked a 5th grader why a hot iron wasn't fire, he or she'd be able to figure out that there are other things involved in creating fire. Thanks for putting on display your lack of logic and sense.

quote:

---

So acoustic, why aren't you capable of "getting it"...unless you're just one of those hopeless man made global warming religious fanatics.

---

I've got it, Jwhop. I've had it. The experts in the field who've studied this to a far greater extent than either you or I could have, have determined some things. I defer to their expertise. That's what rational people do. You can let us know when you feel you've reached sufficient expertise to publish a paper for peer review.

posted June 15, 2010 09:58 AM         

Phil Jones says there has been no significient warming of earth since 1995.

instead, earth has been in a cooling trend since 1998...just like the warming and cooling cycles over the past 650,000 years...as proved by ice core samples.

The crackpot theory of man made global warming is destroyed by facts.

The number one fact which puts the entire fallacy of man made global warming in the crapper is:

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere lag rising temperatures by an average of 800 years...as proved by ice core samples.

Therefore rising carbon dioxide concentrations in earth's atmosphere DO NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. Instead, rising temperatures CAUSE RISING LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE.

posted June 15, 2010 10:14 AM         

When you loose an argument, you just start the loop over again.....
and opinion, rinse and repeat, and opinion, rinse and repeat, endlessly, the same tapes played over and over for years!

But as you say, you are providing a public service by getting the word out.

posted June 15, 2010 01:30 PM         

But Node, you won't always be around to attempt saving acoustic.

Time for acoustic to grow up and stand on his own two feet instead of hiding behind your skirt.

Of course, I've warned acoustic about this behavior before.

posted June 18, 2010 12:29 PM         

Your arguments have been refuted all over this forum, too. Did you miss that part? Every denier argument you've adopted and posted here has been addressed by the scientific community. That's where this debate stands. Science says you're wrong, and you still insist that you're right. You still think Climategate is a rationalization that global warming doesn't exist (or exists, but not as a result of anything man's done). You still think polls about what the general public is concerned with proves something about the climate. How could it? Where's the logic?

Is the Sun the sole factor in global warming? No.

Does the small percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 actually make a difference? Of course.

Does the CO2 lag mean that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming in the first place? No, it doesn't. CO2 is a factor in the climate at all times, and it's contribution is measurable.

___________________

posted June 18, 2010 01:46 PM         

You've refuted nothing.

posted June 18, 2010 03:36 PM         

quote:

---

What you really mean acoustic is that you went to websites dedicated to the global warming religion and let them put words in your mouth.

---

That would be true if my people were mere uneducated commentators like your people. Unfortunately, mine are super educated scientists working in the climate field.

And who have you been quoting, Mr. Secretive? You say Fred Singer's the most prominent climate scientist in the world, but anyone doing a cursory check will find that erroneous. They will find that he hasn't even produced a peer-reviewed paper on the climate since the 60's. Is that your source of information?

quote:

---

The man made global warming religion and the ignorance surrounding this religion is refuted by facts

---

posted June 19, 2010 09:23 AM         

acoustic, where's your list of...at least...31,000 American scientists who are willing to go on the record and say man made global warming is real?

Thought so acoustic. You can't produce any such list of scientists willing to stick their necks out to be chopped off by facts.

Your scientists...your term...are 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th tier hacks working on the government payrolls somewhere who want the government money to keep rolling in to support their lifestyles.

They've already destroyed their reputations as "scientists" in the scientific community by falsifying data and generating phony graphs and documents.

posted June 20, 2010 04:29 AM         

quote:

---

31,000 American scientists signed a petition which says global warming is a hoax, a scam and a con.

---

A petition does not disprove global warming. Nor have these people been vetted as actual climate scientists. It's the same useless argument it's always been.

quote:

---

Your scientists...your term...are 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th tier hacks working on the government payrolls somewhere who want the government money to keep rolling in to support their lifestyles.

---

There's no evidence to support such an assertion. What's worse, even if this was found to be true, the 1st tier scientists would still come down on the side that accepts global warming as reality. Once again, p!ss poor argument, which doesn't deal with the climate or the data.

quote:

---

They've already destroyed their reputations as "scientists" in the scientific community by falsifying data and generating phony graphs and documents.

---

It's tough to assert something that hasn't ever been found to be true. It hasn't been found to be true that global warming is a myth, and it hasn't been found to be true that scientists falsified data. Start asserting things that HAVE been found to be true.

The graph in question, the hockey stick graph, rebuttals are here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-t he-hockey-stick/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200 4/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Here's a statement about a denier's graph:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-t hree-easy-lessons/

posted June 21, 2010 10:18 AM         

- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website. ***NOTE, THIS IS THE WEBSITE, REALCLIMATE, WHICH A MEMBER HERE ATTEMPTED TO USE TO DISCREDIT REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000258-5.html

"A petition does not disprove global warming. Nor have these people been vetted as actual climate scientists. It's the same useless argument it's always been...acoustic"

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And, on the other side....the cadre of so called scientists of the man made global warming religion we have...crackpots, 3rd, 4th and 5th rate hacks, conspirators who delete, change, manipulate and doctor data and attempted to avoid detection by refusing to produce their so called "Research" by refusing FOIA requests...in violation of US and British law. Jim Hansen, Phil Jones and Jim Mann of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph" come to mind...as do the liars and co-conspirators at RealClimate.

posted June 23, 2010 07:06 PM         

It SHOULD be obvious to anyone that this is a highly suspect manner of attempting to prove nonconcensus.

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

posted June 24, 2010 12:19 PM         

That list contains 31,000 American scientists who say man made global warming is a crock.

But, I see your point..no, really acoustic, I do.

Only 9,000 of those scientists have PhDs relating to physics, climatology, biology, mathematics and other scientific disciplines relating to the study of climate history of earth and the construction of climate models.

Now acoustic, where's your list of 31,000 American scientists who say man made carbon dioxide caused the warming of the 20th century.

Oh wait acoustic. Just show me a list of 9,000 American scientists with PhDs who say so. Fair is fair.

I keep asking you for your list and you continue to duck, bob, weave and evade...as you have on other subjects.

posted June 24, 2010 05:53 PM         

quote:

---

Now acoustic, where's your list of 31,000 American scientists who say man made carbon dioxide caused the warming of the 20th century.

Oh wait acoustic. Just show me a list of 9,000 American scientists with PhDs who say so. Fair is fair.

---

I will. Just as soon as you produce peer-reviewed papers regarding the climate from these 9,000 scientists. Oh wait, there's not anywhere close to 9,000 actual climatologists listed in there. There's under 50. Ten years of no skepticism within the peer reviewed community is pretty astounding. I hope someone picks up where she left off sometime.

posted June 24, 2010 10:31 PM         

The entire thrust of the crackpots of the man made global warming religion...and yours too acoustic, is that there's a consensus of scientists who believe carbon dioxide is harming the planet, harming the flora and fauna...including humans and that the harm caused by human emmissions of carbon dioxide will be irreverseable if action...read spending trillions of dollars...is not immediately taken.

So acoustic, I've produced a list of 31,000 American scientists who say this is junk science produced by crackpots of the man made global warming religion.

If there is such a large consensus of scientists, as the crackpots...and YOU say, then where is the list of those scientists who make up that so called consensus?

Surely acoustic, if there is a consensus...then you should be able to produce a list of scientists who make up that consensus.